On Nov. 2, John Edwards' theory of the "Two Americas" was proved true. Unfortunately for Edwards and his well-coiffed cohort, the grinning young senator wrongly identified our two nations as divided over economic status. The real division is a moral one.
It was amusing to read the apoplectic frothing that filled op-ed pages on the day or two after the election. The liberal mourning confirmed what everyone already knew; first, that American and British newspapers are written in a decidedly leftist tone, and second, that the condescending prophets of the declining left are, like their politicians, abrasively out of touch with the majority of American voters.
Paul Krugman of The New York Times called our President a "radical that deeply dislikes America as it is." Maureen Dowd issued a typically manic proclamation that "We're entering another dark age." Jackie Ashley of the Guardian agreed, warning that the election presented "bad news for the enlightenment." Bob Herbert advised that Democrats should start holding "teach-ins" on the campaign trail, citing one biased survey to support his conclusion that there is "a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd." A Times editorial opined that Republicans had "exploited" Hispanic moral conservatism, and a Guardian editorial casually mentioned that one could expect the Republican "hegemony" to be, "in many cases, anti-black."
"Ugh, morals!" These articles snarl. "How infuriatingly nineteenth century. If only these country boors would let us enlighten them!" For all you gun-toting, heart-voting conservatives out there, let me translate: the left thinks you are idiots who would elect a broomstick so long as it promised to believe in God.
I am a conservative, and before all you leftist columnists and professors send your apologies, let me assure you that I thoroughly enjoyed your ranting. I wasn't offended, in fact, your words added to my already extravagant post-election glee. Your impression of Red America is so badly wrong, so stupidly selfish and achingly distant from reality, that I feel sure that the great Democrat Decline of '04 will only continue.
I grew up in Newt Gingrich's district in suburban Atlanta during the resurgence of the Republican Party. The GOP had just taken the U.S. House, and the "Contract with America" was being preached far and wide by the party faithful. As an evangelical Christian and a home-schooled student, I was very near the heart of the evangelical right and I can promise the patronizing leftists out there that the "moron" caricature is false.
Many evangelicals I know quote Paine and Jefferson as if the statesmen lived next door, and can enumerate the Constitutional amendments even faster than they can list the books of the Bible. Their children study government, science, and art with the same fervor they bring to church, and if you ever do a "Freedom Trail" run with one of them, as I recently did, you will likely hear more than a few stanzas of Longfellows' "Paul Revere's Ride," and receive an intensive account of Boston's role in the Revolutionary War.
Liberals seem to think of evangelical Christians as modern-day cave-people who only read the Bible and won't be happy until our fifty states are zealously theocratic. This fallacy stems from the anti-intellectual anger of 20th century Christian fundamentalism. But 21st century evangelicalism has rapidly and energetically engaged our society intellectually, in fields spanning every realm of American culture. The left is just now beginning to feel the effects of the evangelical passion for politics, and I can assure you that this influence will only grow in the immediate future.
That thought scares many liberals who ask, "How dare these people legislate morality?"
Their implicit disgust at an "imminent theocracy" is misinformed and foolish. Moral judgments have always directed legislation. Roe v. Wade is the legislation of a moral conviction that a mother cannot be stopped from ending her pregnancy. Evangelicals oppose that verdict with a conviction of their own that every life deserves to live. Does the liberal have more a right to legislate her morality than the evangelical? Is the evangelical's moral conviction less important? That the evangelical is guided by words from Mt. Sinai, and not just by whims of personal opinion, should make no difference. In fact, a "compelling secular interest" can be found in nearly any moral judgment he would wish to legislate. An evangelical needs no theocracy to influence America politically.
Since the election, Democrats have with great fear and trembling considered how best to win the "values voter." Eliminating the leftist condescension would be a great place to start. Contrary to public opinion, evangelicals are voracious readers, and they are acutely aware of the demeaning treatment they receive from the media. You can't win a voter who feels denigrated and abused by your party.
But I'm not sure that an attitude check will suffice. Core convictions about human fundamentals still divide the parties. Human life issues will only grow in importance. The Democratic Party has become closed-minded and morally careless, too quickly writing a blank check to any scientific practice that depends on the idea that human life begins after birth. A pro-life, pro-traditional marriage Democrat wouldn't get far in the party today. As noted in a recent New York Times article, "No prominent opponent of abortion has come anywhere near the podium of a Democratic convention since 1992, when abortion rights groups blocked a speech on the subject." Until Democrats willingly re-examine their platform on certain moral questions, their political fortunes will suffer.
I offer this advice hopefully, knowing that Republicans and evangelicals aren't correct on every issue, and could well use a moderating influence. But I'd rather have a morally sound political framework than well-meaning but ultimately destructive permissiveness, and as of 2004, America agrees.
Matthew Dysart is a Tufts Alum, class of 2004
