We The People have spoken: President Bush has won the nationwide popular vote by a small but clear margin. No doubt the result is partly a reflection of voters' nervousness about changing leadership during a time of stress and war. But the Bush Administration's enormous unpopularity overseas leads me to worry that the rest of the world will infer from this result something dark about the American people.
The U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the Western world, and fundamentalist Christianity plays a significant part in the Bush Administration's political success and agenda. Unfortunately, fundamentalist religion is a fertile medium for the growth of evil.
It is by no means the only such medium, of course. The Nazis weren't fundamentalists, although Hitler did (in his twisted way) try to create a new religion; Saddam Hussein's regime was a secular one, as was Stalin's. But we need look no further than those who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11 2001, or those who send children to blow themselves up in crowded markets in Israel, to see religious fundamentalism at its most anti-human.
No one is accusing the "coalition of the willing" of crimes equivalent to those of Hitler or Stalin. The families of the thousands of innocent Iraqi dead might be forgiven for missing the distinction, however. And I couldn't fault gay Americans for fearing the future when influential religious leaders speak of them in apocalyptic terms.
I disagree with pretty much every aspect of the Bush agenda and I'm certain the U.S. will be the worse for it, especially economically. But it isn't the Bush team that ultimately worries me. Rather, it's the fact that the most powerful nation in the world is being guided by an electorate - for we are, after all, a functioning Republic - increasingly motivated and informed by the dogmatic side of Christianity. The United States did not start out as a Christian nation, but it is one now. Alas, it is not an enlightened form of Christianity that moves the masses, but an absolutist and increasingly benighted one. We're in danger of becoming a Fourth World, more and more separated (culturally, and soon economically) from our most important trading partners in Europe and Asia.
Oh, and how, exactly, do more marriages (of people who happen to be gay) threaten my marriage? My undying respect to the first person who sends me a rational explanation for that.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - vox populi
Since the economy did not take off in the '90s until there was a Republican congress and has done well since Bush took office, how can you think this will be a bad time economically?
2 - Jon Sobel
Only some segments of the economy (notably, large businesses and people who were already rich) have done well since Bush took office. But to specifically answer your question, I'm not predicting an immediate economic meltdown or anything, but I think we're going to become more isolated. Follow the link in my post to an article describing evidence that U.S. brands are already suffering internationally.
3 - Cap'n Ken
Jon:
I disagree on the economic side (call me a libertarian).
But the Christian stuff does scare the Bejeezus out of me. I know the exit polls were really flawed, but "moral" issues coming up No. 1 on the minds of voters is really scary.
And I think what we'll see is a Democratic party that recognizes that they need a Southern or Midwestern "Christian" candidate to compete in the red states (knowing they can't win with just blue).
Think Bill Clinton with his pants up.
4 - Kirsten
Great piece, Jon.
What Bush's victory signals for the American people, and the world at large, I can only begin to guess at. And it's not pretty.
It's enormously depressing, in fact. Somehow America has become a country I no longer recognise, or understand.
Sadly, I fear, with Bush in power for another four years, America's isolation and alienation from the rest of the world will only become more pronounced.
5 - jack e. jett
the one thing i have learned in my travels over the past few years is that most folks don't really blame americans for the mess that bush got us into.
now, they will have reason to blame us.
sad,
jack
6 - Jon Sobel
Yes to Cap'n Ken - I think there's a problem with the way pollsters (and the general public) use of term "moral." For example, although I am pro-choice, I understand and respect those who oppose abortion because they believe it is immoral. But I draw a distinction between an issue like that and an issue like gay marriage. Abortion raises difficult questions of life and death. Marriage doesn't - it's a civic institution. Religions bless it, but are not needed to legitimize it. For that reason alone, opposing gay marriage is inherently illogical. And as to the matter of who a person chooses to have sex with, I have a lot of trouble discerning any moral issue there, either.
7 - Yensid
"But the Bush Administration's enormous unpopularity overseas leads me to worry that the rest of the world will infer from this result something dark about the American people."
I was thinking about this same thing today. Even though only half of American support this president, the world will view this as the American people supporting and approving of the Bush agenda. That is what ultimately scares me.
8 - Jon Sobel
Jack's comment that "now, they will have reason to blame us" for the Bush mess jibes with some anecdotal evidence I'm hearing of American abroad being stopped and lectured in the streets!
9 - bhw
Jon, excellent piece. Really, well said, dude.
10 - Anna
Well said.
11 - RedTard
Bullshit. The attitude and condescension reflected in this post is the exact reason Democrats have been losing power in government for the last decade. But I do have to thank you, every one of your thinly veiled insults creates more Republican voters.
12 - Mark Saleski
maybe thinly veiled insults shouldn't be used.
why, you seem to enjoying calling people "left wing garbage", for instance.
13 - Jon Sobel
RedTard: what exactly do you find condescending? I write the truth as I see it. Correct my errors, point out what I am missing. Do not call me names. It is your attitude, not mine - unthinking anger, I mean, on both sides - that has polarized the nation.
14 - RedTard
I didn't call any person "left wing garbage". I called a piece of propaganda garbage, which it was.
15 - T
Jon-
Excellecnt piece. I think, unfortunately, I have to agree with you on almost every point. My only area of disagreement is more in scope than anything. With multiple states voting to amend their individual constitutions we are not only "banning" same sex marriages, we are legalizing the unfair treatment and persecution of a segment of our society. What the hell ever happened to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? I THINK I remember reading that somewhere once.......
16 - Eric Olsen
Jon, this is very reasonable and well-written, I don't see any intent at insult and I voted for Bush, though I too am very concerned about separation of church and state, support gay marriage. I don't see the economy as any better or worse with Bush - he DID have 9/11 to deal with and an expensive war I support.
But I do not wish to see the fundamentalist Christians impose their will upon others anymore than I want to see Islamists do the same.
Nice job, thanks.
17 - aacool
Jon,
excellent points - I note on my blog -
Andrew Sullivan has a fair concern raised - the Cultural Stasis might be broken. The Culture Wars begun have, I fear. Jon Sobel has similar concerns about overseas perceptions of a further shift to monocultural identity in America as a result of this mandate - the country risks being painted into a corner, and dark comparisons drawn.
http://selfaudit.blogspot.com
18 - TCL
"The United States did not start out as a Christian nation, but it is one now."
Well-written and -considered post, Jon, except for the above-quoted sentence. Let me state, up front, in an attempt (that I suspect will be fruitless) to avoid the immediate accusations that I'm a fundamentalist Christian zealot: I am an athiest. I agree with your characterization of dogmatic religion as having a great potential for evil.
That said, I think that the characterization of America (or the electorate of the United States if you're more literal-minded) as 'newly' or 'overly' moralistic is incorrect. It reflects, as Claudia Winkler noted at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/982ehdmw.asp: "ignorance of the American political tradition, filled as it is with religious inspiration, both in our political arrangements going all the way back to the Mayflower Compact, and in our foremost social reform movements, from the abolition of slavery to civil rights." (Oh christ, here come the accusations because I read the Weekly Standard. Again, for the record: atheist, voted against my state's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, etc.) The point is made there that Lincoln was among the most religous of men and his decisions were guided by his moral views, as his public writings and utterances reflect. I suspect the response is that Lincoln's Christianity is not the Christianity of today's far right. I agree. As I note, I disagree with that agenda.
But I'm not terrified by the prospect of Jesus Freaks taking over the government, my life, etc. I disagree with their agenda and vote agin' 'em, but I don't think that exit polls reflecting that a plurality of folks ranked "morality" as a primary voting factor means that there's a plurality of fundamentalists. (Though other results may indicate differently -- eg., the state constitutional anti-gay marriage amendments passing overwhelmingly.)
It appears to me that Christians and/or the religious are being somewhat demonized, if not here, then certainly elsewhere on the Internet and in print. They have the right to vote their conscience just as others do. The limitations in our system on religion creeping into government have to be maintained as ironclad, but I see no indication (as yet) that there's a realistic danger on that front.
One additional, final point of dissent: I could care less what the rest of the world infers about the American people. I don't doubt that you're correct in your prediction that it will label Americans as monolithically fundamentalist, but the rest of the world historically has never had a particularly nuanced view of the American people.
19 - Jon Sobel
TCL: When I say the US did not start as a Christian nation, I don't mean Christianity didn't influence the founders at all. I had in mind a) their explicit separation of church and state, and b) the influence of Deism that was also present. Deism implies the belief in a God but not in a revealed truth, which in effect makes it a very humanist belief system. I do believe that right now the fundamentalist views of a minority have undue influence on the nation as a whole. As a New Yorker, my perspective is somewhat regionalist, but that doesn't make it invalid.
Everywhere from Ukraine to Iraq, majorites or influential minorities engage in, or threaten, tyranny. It's tough not to think of this when three letter-writers from Kansas are determining what I can listen to on the radio.
Regarding what other nations think of the American people, you're probably right that "the rest of the world historically has never had a particularly nuanced view," but I still think it matters. Isolationism doesn't work any more, for our economy if nothing else.
20 - Steve S
The limitations in our system on religion creeping into government have to be maintained as ironclad, but I see no indication (as yet) that there's a realistic danger on that front.
Unfortunately I am unable to make all of these links, the site rejects my post, it thinks it is spam, so I will just list the URLs. (I understand and support the attempt to curb spam)
Senate confirmations of judges who openly speak of a Christian nation, and the 'myth' of separation of church and state, is one step towards that danger.
http://blog.au.org/judicial_nominations/index.html
The Constitution Restoration Act 2004 which strips federal courts of the right to hear cases which involve the separation of church and state is about 75 dozen steps down that road.
www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin165.htm
The Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003 writes protection into governmental law for one document of one faith.
www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2045.html
The most likely next head of the Supreme Court, Scalia, questions Government Neutrality towards Religion.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/128205.htm
Some people want to change the tax laws so that churches can become partisan political machines, which is silly enough, but even worse is the fact that they don't want to do the same for other charitable organizations. In other words, it's not that they object to the current tax code on principle but rather they object to the fact that churches have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.
Congress passes a bill to use federal taxpayer money to restore Catholic missions, many of which are still in use as Churches. So now we have taxpayer money of Jewish people, athiests, Buddhists, etc. being used to rebuild churches of one faith.
www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/10213436.htm
I could list at least 75 more examples of the extreme threat that the separation of church and state is under, but for the interest of space, I'll just recommend getting out more.
21 - Jon Sobel
Thanks, I had forgotten about Judge Holmes. It's pretty scary that we have a guy sitting on the federal bench who finds himself "left with some unease about this notion that Christianity and the political order should be assigned to separate spheres."
"This notion"?
22 - andy marsh
The 10 commandments are not a document of one faith! At least 2 and possibly 3 faiths. The old testament is also part of the torah...I'm just not sure if it's part of the koran.
23 - Steve S
Andy, that could be true, I don't study all the faiths, but regardless, it doesn't change one thing about the subject matter.
24 - Jon Sobel
The "Ten Commandments Defense Act" regards the display of the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse as the "free exercise" of religion in the same sense as your decision to go to the church of your choice is the "free exercise" of religion. But it's not the same thing at all. If such a display is not a form of "establishment" of a particular religion, (or in this case, as Andy correctly points out, of a family of religions), I don't know what is.
Interesting poem reproduced on your blog, Andy... but I'm really tired of the swipes against people who go to Ivy League schools. If you're going to use that as a pejorative, I mean, what could be more American than working hard, getting good grades and going to best school you can? At least these people should have the courage of their convictions and vote against the Ivy League politicians they seem to detest so much. George W. Bush, for example: Yale BA 1978, Harvard MBA 1985.
25 - andy marsh
I agree Jon, that is one of 2 poems by Russ Vaughn that I have posted to my weblog. I just like the guy.
I understand the issue of the 10 commandments as a religious symbol, but are the commandments really that bad? I mean, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not commit adultery, honor thy father and thy mother? Are these such bad rules that they drive everyone this crazy? We're not talking about displaying crosses or menorrahs here!
The golden rule comes from the bible also...you know, do unto others... I guess we need to outlaw that one too?