As the election approaches, I want to make a final plea to vote for Bush.
Some Objectivists who are voting for Kerry argue that electing Bush would pose a greater danger from the Religious Right than we face from the Left.
I believe the threat of a theocracy in America in the next few decades is mistaken, because there is too much opposition. I see too many obstacles in daily life.
Let’s look at where we are politically and culturally compared to, say, the 1950s. What were things like back then? Abortion was illegal. School prayer was widespread and often mandatory – and uncontroversial. Segregation was accepted. Radio, television and movie content was far more conformist and aimed toward the suburban middle class; controversial content was rare.
There is simply no way today’s culture would let any of these things return. Even if abortion were illegal in, say, Utah, California and New York voters would never ban it. If school prayer were mandatory for every child in the country, so what? Many older Objectivists managed to live with it. Would people really turn away from “The Simpsons” or reality TV to watch a televangelist? Not in significant numbers.
Some advocate programs like mandatory service for high school students for religious reasons, but some advocate it for different reasons. Both do so because they believe altruism is moral. Keeping the explicitly religious advocates out of power will not stop those who are altruistic for other reasons.
I work with many conservative engineers. Most are religious, but in the “Sunday Christian” sense. The few who talk about Bible study groups or prayer meetings are almost entirely of an older generation. Most engineers I know in their 20’s and 30’s do not treat religion as a serious issue. Some go to church every week; one fellow prays before every meal. But most are agnostic, either in the sense that God’s existence can’t be proved or disproved, or in the sense that the issue doesn’t affect one’s life.
Those who wish to believe we face an imminent threat of theocracy need to clarify the path such an encroachment of our rights will take. Even the religious people I know do not want or advocate the forced conversion of the country.
We aren’t miles from becoming another Iran; we’re light-years away.
One other point: electing Kerry will not stop them. I saw a poll a few weeks ago that evangelical Christians support Bush over Kerry by a factor of 2:1. While this group leans to Bush, by no means are they united. After all, many of Kerry’s positions are altruistic – in many cases more so than Bush’s. The more consistent religious voter would, I think, pull the lever for Kerry.
Finally, if one votes for Kerry in the hopes that the GOP will next time nominate a less religious candidate, how does one prevent them from misinterpreting the loss to mean that a more religious candidate is desired? I’ve never understood the logic of voting against a candidate to “send a message”, since there is no way to specify the content of that message.
In fact, since the war is the major issue this election, a Bush loss will tell the GOP that the public wants a weaker President, one who will ask the UN or NATO or the EU for permission to defend itself. This election is nothing less than a referendum on Bush’s “cowboy” image: does the American public support that image or not?
(I realize he is not quite the cowboy in actual fact, but it is by that image that he is known – by the public, by world leaders, by his supporters, and by his opponents.)
In summary, I encourage people not to vote for Kerry. We do not face an imminent religious threat. Electing Kerry would not reduce significantly the spread of religion. Electing Kerry would tell the world that we reject the “cowboy” approach to fighting terrorists.