January/February 2005

The moral majority

 

Paul Woolley reflects on Bush's re-election and the implications for politicians and the church in the UK

Four more years. Or ‘four more wars’ as the re-elected President’s detractors like to put it. Bush won. Unlike 2000, the result, although close, was clear. Bush won both the popular vote (51% to 48%) and the Electoral College (286 to 252). The exit polls got it wrong. Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove got it right.

Karl Rove has been involved with the Bush family for nearly 30 years and has worked on every one of George W’s campaigns. He is credited with having led Bush, a ‘reluctant political warrior’, all the way to the White House. In his re-election plan, Rove called for massive fundraising and energising the Republican’s conservative base. Securing the evangelical vote and the ‘moral majority’ was an essential element of this.

In 2000 an estimated 80% of the evangelical vote went to Bush. But, after the 2000 election, Rove said that the President might have won the race against Democrat Al Gore by a comfortable margin had 4 million more evangelicals gone to the polls rather than sitting out the election. In November, those evangelicals got out and voted. It is too simplistic to say that the evangelicals won the election for Bush – he got some defections from the growing Hispanic vote – which usually votes Democratic – and he made gains among Catholics and in the Jewish community. But the core of the president’s support comprised Christian conservatives. In a dozen swing states that decided the outcome of the election, ‘moral values’, the ‘economy’ and ‘jobs’ came out as the top issues. Bush won in those states by 84%-15%.

So why did evangelicals vote for Bush and what are the lessons for us in the UK?
Two issues were especially important – gay marriage and abortion.

Gay marriage

On polling day eleven states held ballots to implement a ban on gay marriage, helping to bring out evangelical voters. In 11 states the measures were passed by an overwhelming margin. In the key swing states of Ohio, 2.5 million leaflets opposing gay marriage were distributed to 17,000 churches one week before the election. New York Times correspondent Tim Egan said ‘Time and again in my travels across the battleground states this year, I heard people say the election was all about upholding ‘the sanctity of marriage’.’ Bush wanted Congress to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. Kerry opposed Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment.

Abortion

Christian conservatives, like President Bush, strongly oppose abortion. In his first term, he signed legislation banning late-term partial-birth abortion. Kerry, by contrast, supports a ‘woman’s right to choose’, although he opposes late-term abortions unless for health reasons. In addition, Kerry said he would appoint only pro-abortion Supreme Court judges.

During his first term, Bush limited stem cell research to existing lines only and argued that human cloning was unethical in all instances. The President supports a worldwide cloning ban. Kerry said he would lift current restrictions.

So, on a fairly narrow set of controversial issues, there were clear differences between the President and his opponent.

So how does this relate to us in the UK?

Key differences

Unlike America, abortion has never been a big election issue on this side the Atlantic. Our culture is less religious In the American election both candidates went to some trouble to emphasise faith, and to highlight their faith-based values. The Liberal Left fought back against Religious Right by pointing to the number of times the Bible mentions care for the and justice for the marginalised. It is difficult to imagine Tony Blair, Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy engaged in anything like this sort of debate. Nonetheless politicians urgently need to understand nature of the social crisis confronting society today and rediscover the courage and language needed to talk about majority values again.

Majority values

In October, a YouGov poll was published by the Centre for Social Justice. It asked people the following question: If you had give your children up for adoption, and were able to choose between two families described below, which family would prefer to have adopting your children? Two options were given.

Family 1: Two parents who owned own home and car; who always had enough money to buy your children the latest clothes and pay for interesting after-school activities; who were able to afford a nanny to look after the children when they had go out and regularly work late or go on business trips; who thought that all children experiment with sex and drugs and your children would go through that phase, too, and not much could be done about it.

Family 2: Two parents who were never going to earn a great deal of money every month, they put a small amount aside for a rainy day; the father worked in a factory and the mother stayed at home with children; they believed that your children should be brought up to avoid cigarettes, alcohol and any kind of sexual relationship until they were at least 17 or 18.

The result? Eighty-seven percent chose Family 2. Surprised? No, I’m not either. It’s just common sense.

Despite all the ‘free for all’ talk prevalent in today’s political and cultural discourse, the overwhelming majority of people are instinctively values based, especially when it comes to putting the interests of their children first. Yet politicians often seem reluctant to acknowledge this. They are strangely unwilling to propose policies to support the aspirations of the majority of people. Eighty percent of UK teenagers aspire to marry, so why are politicians so reluctant to use the M-word?

Every issue a moral issue

The political Party that presents a truly compassionate and values based agenda to the electorate will succeed and win back the support of a great swathe of the country that is politically disaffected and has lost patience with politicians. Speaking as a Conservative, I hope that the manifesto presented by my Party at the next election in May will be one that promotes the common-good and is shaped by the values of compassion, not a libertarian ideology of indifference. In the end, the libertarian doctrine on drugs, sex and education disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged in society. The middle classes can afford to protect themselves and their families to some extent from the effects of drug misuse and teenage pregnancy through their spending power. The poor cannot.

In the United States, the term ‘moral issues’ is used to describe a very narrow set of issues. In reality, however, every political issue is a moral issue – Iraq, defence, education, environment, health, jobs and trade. In attempting to reclaim the moral high ground, it is important that political parties understand this.

The challenge

Enough of the finger pointing. In the end Karl Rove was able to mobilise the missing 4 million evangelicals. They engaged in the political process, instead of retreating into the ghetto. It is to their shame that evangelicals are not a significantly powerful political force across the political spectrum in the UK today. But perhaps the tide is on the turn. I hope so.