This is, I hope, the last of my election reflections (sounds like a Schoolhouse Rock episode). Today�s m.o. for many of the blogs I read seems to be to try to figure out why people might not vote for Kerry. Because, in fact, many people did not. For the first time in my recollection, I find myself living in a place where the majority hold political views vastly different from my own. If you ask them why they did not vote for Kerry, some will say they always vote Republican. But many will tell you that either they never thought Kerry was a real candidate or that they were morally opposed to his policies. And frankly, I can understand how someone might feel either way.

I myself was extremely frustrated with Kerry for never stepping forward and giving us more of a platform than �I am not Bush.� I was an extremely easy sell and he never quite gave it to me. My vote for Kerry was always about voting against Bush. It wasn�t until the debates that I felt like I even had anything else to go on and by then it was too little too late.

The moral issue is another question altogether. There have always been and will always be moral differences among Americans. The question is, how should the government handle it, how involved should it be. Most of my neighbors will tell you that morals became an issue in the presidency for them with the Clinton administration. And they�re not just talking about Monica Lewinsky. They�re talking about Whitewater. They want a president they can trust and respect. It�s not so much that they want the White House to articulate their moral code, but they don�t want to be forced to support a policy that goes against it. Thus difficult issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc. don�t bother them particularly until there are laws recognizing them.

Added to this is a general sense of many with religious convictions, including many who used to vote Democrat (Catholics, as a body, are one of the largest groups that fall into this category), that the left has been making fun of them for years. My right-wing neighbors, including those more toward the center of the spectrum, feel that they are fighting intolerance � the intolerance of left-wing intellectuals for right-wing religious. And I�m not just talking about evangelicals, although there are plenty of those in this area to be sure.

I know that �why don�t we all just get along� is not going to get us anywhere. I�m not that na�ve. But the Democratic party needs to consider the many ways in which their constituencies, both current and former, have been alienated in recent years. I was raised by a couple of liberally-minded, centrist Independents and have tended to follow in that vein, although at this point I probably lean a little further to the left. I have not always felt that Washington was representing my interests, but I have never, until now, felt that my interests were actually in danger. And strangely, this is happening because the party that is supposed to be against big government is in power. A major shift has occurred.

The moral views of the religious right are not my own, but I hold my own moral views as highly important and I assume they do the same. I do not want to be a part of a country that is practicing intolerance, religious or otherwise, nor do I wish to be forced to rescind my moral views because I am a citizen. But if I want that kind of respect, I also need to extend the same courtesy to others whose beliefs are different than mine. This is not, of course, possible across the board, and herein lies the problem: governments must arbitrate in some moral issues. If someone believes in murder as a personal right, for example, I would have a major problem with that. Ditto for pedophilia. Nevertheless, to some extent, I feel like we liberals are just getting a taste of our own medicine. Because democratic views tend to be more permissive than Republican views � allowing, for example, for a broader definition of the word marriage � we tend to think that our liberal views ARE espousing tolerance. But the Bush supporters of my acquaintance don�t see it that way at all. Digging ourselves into our respective corners is not going to change anything. Finding a government that can support a multiplicity of viewpoints might. The difficult questions are not going away, nor are they getting less difficult.

Okay. I�ll get off my soapbox now and hope to return to your usually scheduled entries about AJs antics and academic angst as soon as I�ve regained my sense of humor.

0 people said it like they meant it