Moral Values and These Not so United States

by Joel Woodman

In 1972, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson while covering the election for Rolling Stone described then President Richard M. Nixon as representing” that dark, venal and incurably violent side of the American character almost every other country in the world has learned to fear and despise.” And in a story printed just weeks before the 2004 presidential election and four months before his death, Thompson said that he would rather vote for Nixon than George W. Bush. With this in mind I tried to stay calm as I watched the television the night of November 2nd. As the evening went on it looked more and more like many of my worst fears were about to come true. Despite the fact that the war in Iraq had reached its worst levels, our justification for that war turned out to be a farce, not a single new job had been created, and record deficits continued to accumulate; the American people were going to re-elect the man in charge of this massive debacle.

As the night wore on that faint glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel continued to dim, around this time several political commentators attempted to explain why the country had voted so narrowly once again. Through their explanation, which really sounded more like a list of excuses, came up with very little and it did not take long before people started making their own conclusions.

The following morning shortly after John Kerry made his concession speech, I received an email indicating that a new map of the U.S. had been drawn up and in Liberal circles all the red states would now be known as “Jesus Land”. Over night Democrats had been convinced that Middle America was taking over and they would be converting us all into whatever bible beating freak show liberals had conjured up. To make matters worse a poll came back indicating that the hot topic on people’s minds this election year had been “moral values”. By the weeks end, Washington and the whole country were talking about moral values and the fact that George W. had presumably won the election due to his moral leadership. The now infamous exit poll indicated that 22% of people listed moral values as the most important factor in their decision for president, and 80% of those people voted for George W. Bush. The mainstream media ran with it and Spiro Agnew’s description of the media being nothing but “whores and ambulance chasers” never sounded so true. The election was over, moral values, what ever those were, had been the issue, and catchy sound bytes were all we had left to remember it by.

But a few weeks later, another poll done by Zogby International was released, this time when a broader, more specific list of moral issues were presented, the results were very different. Author Jim Wallis points out that, when asked, “ which moral issue most influenced your vote?”42% choose the war in Iraq, while 13% choose abortion and 9% choose gay marriage. Andrew Kohult of the Pew Research center points out “ moral values may have ranked higher ahead of job security only because it was such an ambiguous, appealing catch phrase. If healthcare, taxes, jobs, and the economy had been included in the economic category, it would have topped out at 34%.” In addition the Economist has pointed out that in 2000 the moral values number was close to 35% and 40% in 1996. Finally, the Zogby poll explained that when asked what the most urgent moral problem in America was, 33% choose greed and materialism.

Considering these statistics, it appears strange that with a lower percentage of moral priority than in the two previous elections, so much would be made it this time around. Unfortunately few commentators that I have seen efficiently pursued the morality question, let alone mentioned its role in history or our daily lives. A vast majority of people I know, particularly Democrats, were quick to concede their lack morality and chalk it up for conservatives, not even attempting to discuss an issue that has consistently been reported as the number one concern in an election that was deemed the “ most important of our lives.” This mind set has made the moral values debate increasingly shallow and lacking the nuance that is deserves.

With this in mind I began researching the moral values mystery intensively, hoping to grasp a sense of what seemed to be an enigmatic force that has supposedly polarized our populous. In my pursuit I have come to the conclusion that this is an extremely complicated issue. The answers are deep rooted, and there are no easy solutions in this debate; the main problem being, there is no consensus to draw from, everyone in politics think they have it figured out. However, I have found several key factors that contribute greatly to the moral values dilemma. Some appear to be more pronounced than others, but let us start with the coverage from our beloved and trusted media.

Mainstream media sources have slowly begun to invest much of their time to the red-state vs. blue -state, liberal vs. conservative form of discussion. In an article written by Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria, he illustrates this journalistic sea change in an interview with former CNN “Crossfire” host, Paul Begalan. Begalan explained that on his show,” Everything is reduced to the left vs. right, black vs. white.” Jon Stewart, host of the ‘fake news’ program, the Daily Show, appeared a few months before the 2004 election chastising Begalan and fellow host Tucker Carlson for their participation in this pursuit. Stewart claimed that, “shows like Crossfire are now a metaphor for politics in Washington.” Farred Zakaria continued to describe this change by saying,“ there are two teams, each with its own politicians, think tanks, special-interests groups, media outfits and TV personalities. The requirement of this world is that you must always be reliably left or right.” He most notably concludes that” the progress on any major problem- the deficit, social security, health care- will require the compromise from both sides."

And that is the whole point. The liberal vs. conservative approach is highly detrimental to the political process. Complete disdain for one another’s viewpoint will get us nowhere, and will do nothing to further the understanding of our own moral identity or anything else for that matter. Our political process is reliant on the cooperation and compromise of all sides, and unfortunately the presence of this conciliation is steadily eroding away.

The Fox News’s program Hannity & Colmes epitomizes the left vs. right approach; it sends a shock wave of shallow rhetoric across the airwaves, contributing to the slow deterioration of social and political discourse. No one worries about whether they are making a valid point, or able to back it up with any evidence. This show in particular, willfully undermines the pursuit of truth and is merely a forum for political pundits to tell the other side that their view of the world does not coincide with their own. If our social and political discussions are simplified to a mere red-state vs. blue-state level, we all inevitably suffer. The news will cease to have little if any relevance and it will act not as a discerning voice of information but as an institution that acts solely to reinforce the pre-existing beliefs of its viewers.

Shows like Hannity & Colmes have helped to shape our current political environment in a way that is extremely self-destructive. While this kind of shallow rhetoric is being pumped through the television to millions of viewers, it seams that many people are listening. And while they listen they are accepting the fact that the political discussions we are having in this country are a joke, that the norm has changed and it is acceptable to form their opinions based on the new criteria. Unfortunately it has come to the point where you can discredit someone by simply calling them a liberal or conservative. If you don’t agree with some thing, call it ‘liberal propaganda.’ This red state- blue state mentality has created something very real through out this country. Although a strong conservative movement has been building for decades, a more enigmatic phenomenon has been created very recently with the help of shows like Hannity and Colmes. Labeled as the “Backlash”, author Thomas Frank describes the gradual development of this movement in his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.

Thomas Frank points out that many subscribers of the backlash mentality claim to be fed up with the sex, violence and general departure from moral and ethical responsibility in our country. Millions share this disgust for media filth, including myself. However, many have blamed this occurrence simply on “Liberals”. Or as Shawn Hannity has said, “people are tired of the Liberal Indoctrination of this country”. Take for instance, perhaps the biggest agitator and promoter of red-state vs. blue-state comments, Ann Coulter. Coulter loves to claim that the filth on T.V., and the general decline in morality is conveniently the work of liberals. “ They promote immoral destructive behavior because they are snobs, they embrace criminals because they are snobs, and they adore the environment because they are snobs. Liberals hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility."

Remarkably Ann Coulter’s latest book, How to talk to a Liberal: If You Must is a best seller, leading me to believe that her claims are resonating with millions. The sad part is I suspect Coulter does not even believe all the things she has said. Through out her book she draws attention to many important questions and inconsistencies regarding Liberal leaders, but when real debate wears thin, she immediately jumps to her shallow made for T.V. justifications. It is hard for me to believe that someone can go from making a reasonable, articulate point one minute and in the same breath utter blanket statements in regards to a group that includes more than 50 million, ethnically and economically diverse citizens. It is more likely that Coulter believes that getting people riled up with messages of hate and contempt get far better ratings and sell more books. And that is just pathetic. So for someone like myself, who is very liberal in many of my views, I find it hard to stomach the thought of it being my fault for the crap being fed to the masses these days.

Thomas Frank also sees this problem and continues his critique by pointing out that when you equate economics, business and more importantly class to the equation, much of the backlash grievances do not hold up. For instance, “the erasure of economics is a necessary precondition for most of the basic back-lash ideas. It is only possible to think that the news is slanted to the left, for example, if you don’t take into account who owns the news organizations . . . Likewise, you can only believe that George W. Bush is a man of the people if you have screened out his family’s economic status.”

In many ways much of the backlash mentality appears to be a kind of a paradigm shift in the way people view the world. Frank goes on to say, “One problem the old left didn’t have was explaining how the world worked: class struggles, they thought, could pretty much account for everything. But drain economics out of the world, and you’re left with few tools for explaining anything.” He concludes by saying,” When you have rejected all the accepted social science methods for understanding the way things work, when you can’t straight talk about social class, when you can’t admit the validity of even the most basic historical truths, all you are left with are these most blunt tools: journalists and sociologists and historians and musicians and photographers do what they do because they liberals.”

Understanding the current role of morality in our social and political lives inevitably requires a serious inspection of our relationship with God, namely Christianity. It appears to me that many subscribers to the backlash platform rely heavily on absolutes and that their moral guide is directed by this rigid approach. They often view an open exchange of ideas with someone of a differing opinion with the utmost contempt, including other Christians. It is obvious to me that many Christians in this country have embraced our presidents “ your either with us or with the terrorists” mentality. In actuality the embrace of this world-view is contradictory and selectively avoids many teachings of the man they claim to worship. Author and Evangelical Christian, Jim Wallis asks the question, “How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro war, and only American? And how do we get back to historic, biblical, and genuinely evangelical faith rescued from its contemporary distortions?

Professor and author Cornell West has also observed the rift in Christian identity and the selective morality it has caused with in our populous. West sees the divide as a struggle between a prophetic and Constantinian view of Christianity. He writes, “These Constantinian Christians fail to appreciate their violation of Christian love and justice because Constantinian Christianity in America places such a strong emphasis on personal conversion, individual piety, and philanthropic service and has lost its fervor for the suspicion of worldly authorities and for doing justice in the service of the most vulnerable among us.”

This selective moral approach has become highly destructive and interestingly enough appears to be building more momentum. This perplexing reality lead me to believe that there must be something deeper, something much more fundamental to not only our moral identity, but our American identity as well. It was around this time I happened upon a writer named Tim Wise. Wise proposes that the reason these blue collar, working class Christians can so readily support a neoconservative agenda has more to do with their race than their religion, or economic status. Wise explains that the reason working class white America can continue to vote against their interest is in fact due to their whiteness. He describes it as being an “alternative form of self-interest.” Wise also makes it clear that this is relatively exclusive to white America. When you look at how black America, or more specifically, black evangelicals voted in the last election, blacks voted “6 or 7-1” against the president.

Wise points out that most of the white population feels America is a country of promise, the “land of opportunity”, and that one day they can be the boss. He explains that for most of black America, they are not so disillusioned to think that if you just work hard enough you can get what you want, and that they have come to understand on a daily basis that that is sadly not the case. But for white America “there has been just enough privilege for white people, over people of color, just enough examples of mobility that it might be true for them.” He also brings up the fact that white America continually supports the idea that we are a country of winners. And to be wealthy is to be a winner, and most importantly “to identify yourself strictly by economics, as a member of the working class, is to identify yourself as a loser.” So when white America supports a conservative agenda that is in great opposition to their economic interest, they are acting with an “alternative self- interest. They are unwilling to acknowledge that, “the very privilege they cling to, the privilege they try and defend, is the very power that harms them.”

If Mr. Wise is correct in his appraisal, then our debate has to be about much more than just moral values and which side selfishly claims to posses them. It must be about combating our identity as Americans. It is about looking at our history and not shying away from the harsh realities that elite power and more importantly, white privilege has created for us all. My ultimate fear is that while our media toils over political talking points, a serious conservative movement is building in this country. One that could potentially be in power for decades, one that would abolish much of what the “New Deal” embodied, and degrade what prophetic Christians (most notably women and people of color) have fought so hard to attain.

At the moment, I am worried that Democrats have done such a poor job of articulating their own sense of Liberal identity, and that G.W. (namely Karl Rove and company) have tapped into the core of many WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS. Or in other words, they have done such a good job at convincing people that they and the Republican party are not only the sole stewards of morality, but that their Neo-conservative policies will provide America with the key to social and economic prosperity.

The immediate future does look bleak. The neo-conservative voice is yelling much louder right now, and they have the political leverage to cause real, sustainable change in this country. They have positioned themselves as the majority in almost every facet of our political structure and they have virtually claimed soul ownership of morality in American life. Realistically, it may take decades before we can as George Lakoff has said, “reframe the debate”, to fit a real majority of interests for the people. Democracy is not easy, and despite our declaration that “all men are created equal”, it has taken centuries for much of those freedoms to be realized; and preserving those freedoms is as even tougher task. We need to understand that, just as any significant social event in our past, this change will not occur without the will and leadership of the people. An elite group has convinced millions that they are something that they are not. But exposing them for what they are is not enough. We must provide an alternative vision, one that is true and one that combats our tough issues and looks deep into our American identity. We must be willing to question and acknowledge that we may be part of the problem, while being the only solution. We must have faith in ourselves to lead the way, and we must believe in the words of Jim Wallis that, “we are the ones we have been waiting for.”