Comments on: Did Young People Let Kerry Down?

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Every law is a legislation of someone's morality."

Maybe, but not all morality is contested. For example, nobody is suggesting that murder be decriminalized. I don't think any activity should be criminalized unless it meets the same level of support.

On the other hand, there is almost nothing in the agenda of the Right that is not contested: abortion, homosexuality, and embryonic stem cells are the big ones these days. These are highly controversial issues that the Right refuses to budge on. So rather than arguing their case or convincing other people, they have turned to the strategy of taking control of the government so they can advance their agenda without opposition. This is the exact same strategy that the southern slave states used before the Civil War, and what angered so many in the northern states.

If the agenda of the Christian Right goes much further, they're going to face extra-legal opposition. There will be people providing abortions like Jack Kevorkian provided assisted suicide. There will be local officials providing gay marriages like we saw in San Francisco. People don't want to have these things legislated out of their hands.

At the same time, some of us are sick of people treating the civil government like a house of worship, invoking God at every turn, and this just happens to be perhaps the biggest goal of the Christian Right. When people are out there today thanking God for giving them the "right" person to enforce their worldview, when the President repeatedly claims to believe that he is doing the will of God in his governing, there is little to see in this pattern but that the Christian Right is ultimately aiming for a fascist theocracy where it's illegal to be an atheist and it's illegal to behave in ways that conservative Christians don't approve.

Meanwhile, all the years that Christians complained about "secular humanists," they never lost their right to go to church, never lost their right to pray, never lost their right to marry someone of the opposite sex, never lost their right to not abort their babies, never lost their right, in short, to live Christian lives. But the moment they get political power, they do everything they can to take rights from everyone else!

Leave criminal activities in the sphere of universal disapproval, and don't use the power of the federal government to criminalize controversial behaviors.

By: theomorph

theomorph — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Untitled document "On the bright side, we should be able to get some bright young anti-Roe SC justices out of the deal. This is the only solace I find in this result."

So politics is just culture war strategy, or what? Is there anybody left in this country who doesn't want to use the government to advance some moral or cultural agenda?

What happened to establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty?

Why do we have people all over the country doing the Snoopy dance because we got four more years of a president who supports the criminalization of things they think are immoral?

Why can't Americans be free to decide for themselves whether they want to clone embryos, get abortions, or engage in homosexual marriages, instead of having these decisions legislated for them? What are conservative Christians so flippin' terrified of? Can't have the neighbors getting abortions or being gay? Why does the whole nation have to conform to your moral view? You can choose not to abort your babies. You can still have a heterosexual spouse. And if you're outside of California you can choose whether you want your money to go toward embryonic stem cell research. (Should the issue come up federally or in your state, vote against it. You're free to do that.)

The philosophical differences between the Left and the Right don't bother me. But when people see the government as an agent of their own moral agenda, I get extremely annoyed. That's not what the government is for.

By: Amy

Amy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Amen to that.

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Funky,

I don't know the final stats on this, but several sources had youth turnout at exactly the same level as 2000 — I would have expected a little more, but I clearly am an idealist on that.

Theo,

I realize from time to time that other people out there really don't see abortion as the moral issue some of us Christian folk do. But I have to second Steve on the Roe comment — unfortunately, like Steve, I don't see too many other bright spots in this, but I'll keep searching…

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I don't buy it. I think they did turn out, but so did a lot of other people. Also, I think there are far more conservative young people than the DNC anticipated. They were motivated to vote this time, too.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Untitled document I had said:

"Every law is a legislation of /isomeone's morality."

to which, Theo responded:

Maybe, but not all morality is contested. For example, nobody is suggesting that murder be decriminalized. I don't think any activity should be criminalized unless it meets the same level of support.

Do current tax rates have the same level of support as laws against murder? I think they should be higher (at least for those who, like myself, can afford it). Some think lower, some the same. These laws do impact all our lives, e.g., how much discretionary income we get.

Just how popular does a law have to be? The murder example probably gets about 99% approval. But is 67% okay? Prohibition went thru with approval from 75% of the state legislatures. As did its repeal, of course. Is 75% enough to legislate morality?

Or is it that you don't agree with legislating morality only when you don't agree with the legislation? If so, then you shouldn't pretend there is some higher law that forbids certain forms of legislation. If there is a higher law, then it should be clearly stated.

Best regards

By: June

June — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I hope so.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I mutterred to myself when the dems nominated Kerry that the last northeastern liberal to be elected president was Kennedy. Since then it has been only moderate/conservative (or conservative-sounding (LBJ)) Southern democrats who have succeeded. I went into yesterday thinking that I was wrong: Bush was so unpopular that (in my mind) even John Kerry could win. I was right with the first thought. Impossible to know but I'm almost positive that Gephardt or Edwards (at the top of the ticket) would have beaten GWB.

The problem is with the democratic "base" who in the course of only a few primaries/caucuses decides who their horse will be every 4 years. They are way too far to the left. Kerry's views on gays cost him big time. In sympathy to h2, I have to guess that Dean wouldn't have fared even as well as Kerry.

At the same time, there is a problem with the Republican base... i.e., we (evangelical Christians) are in it. This sucks! How do I reform this monolothic, gullible voting block? I hope for a pro-choice/embryo-cloning Schwartzenegger-esque republican in '08. That will hopefully end this reign of terror that "my people" have foisted on themselves and the American people.

As regards the 18-24 YOs, yeah they didn't turn out. This strikes me as so typical of the group: far more concerned with fashion than substance. It turned out that the vote (in general) was gotten out... it just cut both ways (contrary to pundit opinion).

Too many folks just weren't voting for Kerry, but against Bush... This proved to be too unreliable when the rubber met the road.

On the bright side, we should be able to get some bright young anti-Roe SC justices out of the deal. This is the only solace I find in this result. Hopefully it will not be at cost of another 20,000 Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian lives.

Cheers!

By: h2

h2 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think it was unquestioned that the youth sentiment favored Kerry, but as Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC last night, "they'll leave you at the altar every time."

Had they bothered to actually turn out, it might have made a difference, but reality doesn't show them to be a reliable base.

By: EmilyE

EmilyE — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

One thing I found was that the undecided voters near my age who I talked to were generally leaning toward Bush. There were your standard, liberal, anyone-but-Bush activists on college campuses, but there were plenty who didn't know who to vote for (but knew it was important to vote). The sense I got in talking to some of that second group is that they didn't like Bush, but they really didn't trust Kerry — so they were leaning toward Bush. That surprised me, and I'm not sure how many of the leaners actually went to the polls, but still….