fear and hate
by John at 11/04/2004 08:41:00 AM
If you look at the same exit poll I cited yesterday, you'll see that 19% of voters thought the most important issue was terrorism - and 86% of those who thought terrorism was most important voted for Bush. 1/6 of all voters voted for Bush out of fear.
When asked the specific question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry or form civil unions, 37% of all voters thought that there should be no legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Of those, 70% voted for Bush. 1/4 of all voters voted for Bush out of hate. That's more than the fraction that choose moral values as the most important election issue. I think it's safe to say there is substantial overlap between the two categories.
So, we have fear and hate. 1/3 of all voters voted for Bush primarily because of fear and hate. 2/3 of all Bush voters chose him because of fear and hate. That's quite a base you've got, Mr. Bush.
When asked the specific question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry or form civil unions, 37% of all voters thought that there should be no legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Of those, 70% voted for Bush. 1/4 of all voters voted for Bush out of hate. That's more than the fraction that choose moral values as the most important election issue. I think it's safe to say there is substantial overlap between the two categories.
So, we have fear and hate. 1/3 of all voters voted for Bush primarily because of fear and hate. 2/3 of all Bush voters chose him because of fear and hate. That's quite a base you've got, Mr. Bush.
I think this might be the cause of at least a little of my depression after this election. It's very difficult to come to terms with the fact that the majority of your country bases its decisions for leaders on so-called Christian morals (which don't seem to fit in that category at all) joined with an intense fear of the 'infidel'. I am having a hard time with how far from the fold I feel.
Maybe it's because at least in the last election, we knew that the people didn't choose this...and now, after four years of it, the people DID choose it. I can't believe it.
Funny you should mention Christian morals. I had been thinking the last few months about starting to go to church again, but recent events were making me want to run as fast as possible in the opposite direction every time I saw a cross. This was ironic, since the polling place for our precinct was in a house of worship. Maybe there is a God, though, since this wasn't just any house of worship, but a Friends (aka Quaker) Meeting House. The Quakers are not only famous pacifists, but also happen to be perhaps the most tolerant of all Christian denominations.
The line to vote snaked from the front door, past the church kitchen, and into the main room and along the way passed some bulletin boards on which a couple of interesting things were posted. Alongside the sign-ups for the church's Thanksgiving meal and reminders to be sure to donate money to help the poor child in India adopted by the congregation were a pair of pictures that showed a sea of empty boots, the captions reading "These 861 boots are to remind us of the 861 soldiers who have died in the Iraq war" (this was obviously an old picture as the deaths have surpassed the one thousand mark already) and "These 1000 boots are to remind us of the 16,000 Iraqis who have died during the Iraq war" The other item was torn out of one of those question-a-day trivia calendars. The question for that day was "Which religious group was the first to openly accept homosexuality?" The answer, of course was the Quakers, and the following quote apppeared on the page "An act which (for example) expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual. The same criteria seem to us to apply whether a relationship is heterosexual or homosexual." Towards a Quaker view of sex, 1963
It made me happy to think that perhaps a few of those voters who (incomprehensibly!) were still undecided might see these items in their last few moments before making their decision and punching out their chads.
I think I want to be a Quaker.
Remember, only 51% approved. That's got to be some kind of low for re-electing an incumbent.
But I know what you mean. Last time we could say the half that wanted him were gung-ho about "compassionate conservatism" or upset with Clinton or something like that, and that they didn't get what they expected from Bush. Now we know for sure that they got exactly what they wanted, and they want more of it.
Yeah, 51% is still depressing and a little unbelievable to me. Maybe it's because I'm sitting here in Seattle surrounding by a bunch of people that think like me or something, but I just can't believe it.
Wendy, Bill was just chatting about why a democrat Quaker should be the in next presidential running. Maybe we can get him to post some of his ideas tonight. Very interesting. My voting experience was not as enlightening as yours, but entertaining nonetheless..I went to the our neighborhood Oddfellows Hall! I was trying to get some inside information or see a secret room or something, but alas, there were too many people for me to pop out of line to explore!!
Quaker Democrat 2008!, Amy and I were talking about that just yesterday. I think that progressives will have to reverse their thinking about abortion rights, but if we realy adopt a Christian ethos, in the true sense of the word...then "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty straight forward. It doesn't say anything about excluding prisoners or murderers or foreigners, just simply no killing, and turn the other cheek too. Really though it wouldn't work, Evangelicals are extemely selective in their "strict interpretation" fetuses are sacred, the death penaly and war are cool though, as long as it is against non-Christians.
On the somewhat lighter side - What really scares Americans (Ann Telnaes)
» Post a Comment