Yes, the Christian fascists seem to have come out in droves, what I want to know is, how is it that moderate Republicans and Independents still feel that it's OK to be in a coalition with these people? Catholics and Jews, for example, should be scared shitless of the Evangelicals, but apparently they aren't. The thing is, I really don't think Dems saw it coming (well, I certainly didn't). I also thought it was about facts and issues and the war and healthcare. But I haven't heard anyone say, loud and clear: Look, a vote for Bush could be a vote for Christian fundamentalists, could be a vote for people who hate Jews and Catholics, could be a vote for people who will destroy our ability to make technological and scientific progress, could be a vote for people who believe Armageddon will come within our lifetime, could be a vote for extremists. In short: a vote vor Bush could be a vote against America.
We will not win this cultural war by running away from it, nor will we win it by dancing around it, or by ignoring it, or by bashing 'the south' (And, just so you know: I grew up in Europe and live in NYC, so what do I know, really. Grain of Salt and all that...). We will win it by engaging in this war. Americans are not extremists, nor is the Christian right the majority. But Americans do have conservative values and they love people who can talk straight with them, and who can talk TO them, in a clear and simple language.
The religious right has found a boogeyman, and it apparently guarantees its success: it's the white male gay Northeastener who speaks French and speaks in long nuanced sentences. The guy that Arnold calls girlie-man. The guy who doesn't believe in anything, other than himself and his pleasure, and who can talk about the misfortune of poor people without ever having had to worry about money himself, because he's a lying rich spoiled brat. This guy is of course semi-fiction, but this time around his name was John Kerry, and Republicans have been extremely extremely skilled at drilling this home into people's subconsciousness, of course with the happy help of big business and media.
The Dems are still incredibly bad at this perception game. And the Dems didn't have a boogeyman. Their boogeyman was Bush, but nothing sticks to that guy, because all the bad things we said about him were based on facts, but contradicted by people's perception about him. Even people who hate him admit that he might make a good neighbor, father, guy to have a drink and a joke with. Perception wins.
The stemcell research issue got too little play, but was also too narrow and complicated. It smelled of favors to big money. I think the issue of teaching our children creationism would have been a much better issue, because it basically says, look we are teaching our children evangelical nonsense, which will make them unfit to compete, and ruin America's superiority in technology. To me, this is more compelling than screaming 'But Bush didn't fund No Child Left Behind'. The issue is, what are we teaching our kids, not how much money are we spending. Should we teach hate and illusions and nonsense, or should we teach hope and hard work and science?
Now, at the same time, we (especially in the Northeast) simply have to understand how important religion and faith is. Bashing Southerners as religious nutcases will get us nowhere. But having an open and honest discussion about a balance between faith/religion and science/technology might. Stop talking about money (especially if it's not yours, but government taxes and budgets), talk about the values of these things and the value of teaching both, faith and reason, to our kids. Teaching creationism is unreasonable, just as using abortion as a convenient method of family planning is unacceptable and morally corrupt. Saying that being gay is a choice is unreasonable, but making the choice to have a life filled with meaningless sex and drugs, is morally corrupt.
I realize there's a fine line between engaging in ruthless gay/woman/minority bashing and making clear statements about moral values. Democrats better learn to find and walk that line or else the Evangelicals really will take over this country.
In short, I am scared of Evangelicals, maybe because I live in NYC and don't know enough about them (and presumably, I am not the only Dem in this position). It seems like the big elephant in the room that noone seems to dare talking about. It's about time that someone does, forcefully, compellingly, and from his or her heart. Maybe 2008 is not too early for Obama.
Your thoughts appreciated.