| || ||
"What's the Matter with Kansas?" is the title of a book that a
pundit has pronounced the most important political book of this election
year. It deals with a part of Kansas that has been in an economic recession
but where the people still keep voting Republican, and the author claims
that this shows something drastically wrong with the our political system.
The explanation is that the voters - quintessential representatives of the
now-familiar "red" that covers most of our electoral map - are
primarily concerned about moral values, what are now dubbed the "social
Exit polls in the recent election showed that over twenty per cent of the
voters named that as their chief concern, which has caused the pundits endless
consternation and puzzlement. How can this be? As someone wryly remarked,
the response from the "enlightened" class has been in effect,
"Values? What are they?"
The French were of course outraged. One commentator pronounced the electoral
results "totally bizarre" and "outdated" (the ultimate
putdown), while another more discreetly observed that "we live on different
planets." If the American voters go against enlightened European opinion,
there is obviously something wrong with the voters.
Maureen Dowd of The New York Times was so enraged that she was scarcely
able to write coherently, as she sneered at "'values voters,' as they
call themselves," and accused the Republicans of "dividing the
country along the fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance, and religious
rule." A letter to a newspaper warned that the nation is now doomed
to four years of "pietistic posturing, of naked bigotry," while
another found that the Republican victory was due simply to "naked
The Frenchman who sees the United States and Western Europe as being on
different planets is right, in that issues like abortion are not even on
the agenda in most of Western Europe. The United States, for all its innumerable
sins, is religiously and morally the most traditional society in the West.
To a great extent the red-blue division on the electoral map reflects a
split between the majority of country that takes such things seriously and
the self-consciously enlightened minority who think that calling someone
religious is a damaging accusation.
The day after the election a commentator was announcing that the issue is
"jobs, jobs, jobs." Of course everybody thinks there should be
more jobs. But, although all presidents claim the ability, it is not at
all clear how much any president can do to improve the economy. The point
of chanting "jobs, jobs, jobs" is to ignore what voters identify
as moral values and to stick with the familiar agenda.
For decades liberals have presented themselves as champions of "the
people" and enemies of the privileged. But whatever validity that claim
may have in terms of economics, it is false when it comes to moral values,
where liberalism has become synonymous with ideas most of the country repudiates.
But instead of undergoing agonizing self-appraisal (should we be seen as
the party of abortion?), liberals change the subject. Don't the voters understand
that they aren't supposed to let moral issues influence them? Liberals suffer
a failure of both imagination and intellect - they simply cannot conceive
how other people might have a serious agenda different from their own. Thus
they in effect accuse the Republicans of having invented issues to confuse
the voters, as though it were not the liberals themselves who have used
politics to legalize abortion and achieve other goals.
There are assumptions here that are not explicitly stated because they are
indefensible. One is the obligation to go with the apparent tide of history,
so that it is self-evidently a condemnation to claim that the United States
is "outdated" in comparison to Europe. The other is a quasi-Marxism
in which economic self-interest alone is a legitimate motive in politics.
The Founding Fathers hoped that the citizens would be motivated by disinterested
concern for the good of their country and that politics would not be reduced
to self-interest. That faith in the people has not been misplaced and, as
it turns out, it is also just bad politics to solicit votes by telling people
that they are stupid or wicked, or both.
Dr. James Hitchcock, professor of history at St. Louis University,
writes and lectures on contemporary Church matters. His column appears in
the diocesan press. He is the author of several books, including The
Recovery of the Sacred, What is Secular Humanism?, and Years of Crisis:
Collected Essays, 1970-1983.
Princeton University Press just published his two-volume history of the
Supreme Court, The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life:
The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (Vol. 1) and
From "Higher Law" to "Sectarian Scruples"
(Vol. 2). He is also a regular contributor to many Catholic periodicals,
This article originally appeared in November 2004 on the Women
for Faith & Family website. It is reprinted by permission of the author.
If you'd like to receive the FREE IgnatiusInsight.com e-letter (about
every 2 to 3 weeks), which includes regular updates about IgnatiusInsight.com
articles, reviews, excerpts, and author appearances,
please click here to sign-up today!
| || || |