In Defense of the Religious Right Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats

CHAPTER 6 ; THIRTY MILLION JESUS ;FREAKS CAN'T BE WRONG ; ; The best way to think about the postelection analysis from 2004 ; is of two armies. One army advances on a piece of terrain and ; swiftly takes it. The second army girds its forces, complete with ; superior firepower and overwhelming troop strength. This second ; army not only retakes the lost ground, but then proceeds to decimate ; opposition forces, hopeful none will live to retell the tale of ;their inspiring, if short-lived, victory. ; This first army represents the immediate conventional wisdom ; after a 2004 exit poll showed that 22 percent of all voters were motivated ; to vote by "moral values" issues, as opposed to 20 percent who ;said the "economy and jobs" motivated them, 19 percent who said"terrorism," and 15 percent who said Iraq. ;"What does Bush owe the Religious Right?" asked Karen ; Tumulty and Matthew Cooper in Time magazine. "They helped ; reelect the President, and Christian conservatives want payback." ;"I think the rise of what was called moral values in the polls on ; this election defined a group of people whose families face, who want ; to live, and do live in what we would call an old-fashioned life . . . ; more 'Father Knows Best' and less 'The Times They Are A ; Changin',' " historian and writer Richard Reeves, who studies politics ; and presidents, told CBS News. "And 'Father Knows Best' held on." ;"Voters focused on four issues: moral values, the economy, terrorism ; and the war in Iraq. The issue most voters thought was most ; important was moral values," observed Dan Rather. "For those voters, ; the choice was lopsided: 79 percent went for Mr. Bush, and only ; 18 percent for Kerry." ; Some of the duller lights of this analysis emanated, of course, from ; liberal pundits. These folks accepted the idea that moral values won ; the election for Bush. Yet they resented the fact because they themselves ; very publicly reject America's moral values. "Can a people that ; believe more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be ; called an Enlightened nation?" cried Garry Wills. The ironically-named novelist Jane Smiley used the I-word to explain what happened:"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to ;cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry." Columnist Michael ;Kinsley said Christian voters were more "arrogant" than people on his ;side of the aisle who are "crippled by reason and open-mindedness." ; Finally reaching the acceptance stage of grief, Katha Pollitt wrote ; in Slate , "If a voter wants Christian Jihad, he may not be willing to ; desert the cause for health insurance--especially with Republicans ; telling him 50 times a day that the plan is really a socialist plot to ;raise his taxes and poison him with Canadian drugs." ;"Let's be clear: Bush ran on a moral agenda--God, guns, gays, ; and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism," ; echoed Robert Reich. ; THE "MYTH" MYTH ; So that was it, eh? Case closed? Evangelical Christians turned out in ; record numbers, motivated by "moral values" and an inordinate fear ; of progress to reelect Pres. George W. Bush? ; Not quite. The counter-analysis came swift and hard. It came ; from the Left and the Right and the Center. Whatever the 2004 ; election was about, these election spinners demanded, it was not ;about "moral values." ;"The morality gap didn't decide the eleHynes, Patrick is the author of 'In Defense of the Religious Right Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why That Terrifies the Democrats', published 2006 under ISBN 9781595550514 and ISBN 1595550518.