The Economist says the election turns on the relative turnout of the faithful, as opposed to the skeptical:
[In 2000] Karl Rove, George Bush's chief political strategist, thought then that his man was coasting to victory; but the Democratic turnout was suddenly better than expected, and the Republican one worse. Mr Rove is particularly obsessed by the idea that 4m evangelical Christians who should have pulled the lever for Mr Bush simply stayed at home. Since then, he has done everything in his power to boost turnout among "people of faith" in general and evangelical Protestants in particular. . .This over-simplifies--Republican voters tend to be religious in general, not just Christians. Among that group, doctrinal differences are minor, says Mark Steyn:
Mr Rove's strategy of galvanising people of faith risks provoking a backlash from people of a more secular persuasion. . . [I]t is easy to underestimate the power of secular America. The number of Americans who claim they have no religion has doubled over the past decade to 29m.
Regardless of the outcome of Mr Rove's strategy, America looks ever more divided along cultural lines. The Republicans are becoming the party of committed Christians, the Democrats that of committed secularists.
The American Right . . . is supposed to be split from top to toe between 'neocons' and 'paleocons', the latter being the isolationist Right and the former being sinister Jewish intellectuals who've turned the Bush administration into an arm of Israeli foreign policy. One problem for those who see conservatism in terms of this epic struggle is that one side doesn't exist. The 'paleocons' boil down to a handful of anti-war conservatives, the most prominent being Pat Buchanan, who in the 2000 presidential election got 0.42 per cent of the vote. . . . The real divide is between the neocons (for want of a better term) and the 'assertive nationalists' - that's to say, those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes and rebuild them as democratic societies, and those who think we ought to bomb rogue states, smash their regimes, and then leave them to stew in their own juices, with a reminder that if the next thug is foolish enough to catch Washington's eye, then (as Arnie says) 'Ah'll be back!' This difference can seem like a big deal -- those who think we need to win their hearts and minds vs those who think they're mostly heartless and mindless, so who cares? But in truth it's only a difference of degree.Still, the Economist's dichotomy is correct in a larger sense: the difference between left and right turns on the existence of and response to evil. Republicans say evil exists and must be resisted. Today's Democrats discount evil, except as embodied in America, and eschew force either way. Bush concluded Saddam was evil, and so toppled him. Liberals feared the Administration more than Saddam and so:
protested or stripped naked within easy driving distance. Rallies were confined to countries free from torture or extra-judicial murder--places where freedom of speech and assembly already are guaranteed. Admonishment of Iraqi atrocities was brief, invariably punctuated by "but," which in turn summoned endless scolding of America.So the 2004 election is both a referendum on foreign policy and a test of faith. Not just (or even necessarily) in God, but in our nation. Because, unlike Democrats, Republicans are united by a conviction America should challenge evil and faith in our ultimate success. Put differently, a second Bush Administration understands that America is and can continue to be a force for good in the world.
I believe, I believe. And because I believe a majority of Americans believe, I believe in four more years.
No comments:
Post a Comment