Neocons Downplay `Moral Issue` In Election. Stupid Party Believes Them


It didn`t take the

neoconservatives
long to figure out the real truth
about the election and explain to us, hanging
breathless, what we should think about it.


David Brooks
in the New York Times was
perhaps the first to unveil it to the rest of us out
here in the boonies.

The truth, you see, is that "it
is certainly wrong"
that the

"moral issue"
was the driving force in the
election. That delusion comes from a "poorly worded
question"
in the exit polls.

"When asked about the issue that
most influenced their vote,"
Mr. Brooks writes,

"voters
were given the option of saying `moral values.` But that
phrase can mean anything—or nothing. Who doesn`t vote on
moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a
misleading result."
[The
Values-Vote Myth
, November 6, 2004]

And if you want a misleading result
before you ask the question, you get neocon propaganda.
Neoconservatives don`t like the "moral issue" or
the

white Christian evangelicals
who take that issue

seriously enough
to vote on it.

What the neoconservatives care
about is foreign policy, especially how all those white
Christian cattle in the

backwaters
can be rounded up to fight the Middle
East wars the neocons are slobbering to wage—"World
War IV
,"
as neocon guru Norman Podhoretz

likes to call it.

Mr. Brooks, despite occasional
reservations about the Iraq boondoggle, is on board for
that agenda too, and much of his column sought to
explain how the election was really "a broad victory
for
[President] Bush" and that a national
consensus behind the "war on terror" was what led
to his victory.

Yet, as I have noted before, only
51 percent of the voters supported Mr. Bush

at all
, and while he did win the election, there was
nothing "broad" about it.

The broad victory was not that of
Mr. Bush and his foreign policy but of the moral
issue—the massive and simultaneous success of

11 state ballot measures
that rejected same-sex
marriage.

There`s no "misleading question"
involved here. It was straight-forward and so simple
even neocons could grasp it, which they do, which is why
they are so eager to explain it away before the rest of
the country starts talking about matters they don`t want
to talk about.

The neoconservatives of course are
not the only people who don`t want to talk about such
matters—namely, the moral direction of the nation and
its culture. The

Republican establishment
doesn`t want to talk about
it either, which is why, as the Washington Post
reported last week, evangelicals had to drag the GOP
kicking and screaming to support the marriage amendments
at all.

In Michigan, state Sen. Alan
Cropsey, sponsor of a bill to ban homosexual marriage,

told the Post
"the Republican Party was
not helpful at all. It`s not like they were the
instigators. They were the Johnny-come-latelies, if
anything."
Several other activists say the same.

So far from Republicans or the
White House using the ballot measures to crank out the
evangelical vote, the evangelicals themselves—and in
some areas Roman Catholic groups—created the movement.
Evangelical leader Charles Colson says, "The White
House guys were kind of resisting it
[the marriage
issue] on the grounds that `We haven`t decided what
position we want to take on that.`"
[Evangelicals
Say They Led Charge For the GOP
, By Alan
Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall, November 8, 2004]

What the election returns really
tell us, then, has little to do with President Bush (who
a week before the election

defended
"rights to a civil union, a legal
arrangement, if that`s what a state chooses to do,"

and explicitly renounced the GOP platform on same-sex
marriage on ABC`s Good Morning America), let
alone his foreign policy.

What they tell us is that the
Republican Party including its top leader still doesn`t
get it and that it still prefers to take its signals
from neoconservatives like Mr. Brooks and the cultural
and ideological ghetto they represent.

The White House and the GOP didn`t
want to support the grassroots movement against same-sex
marriage because the people who staff those institutions
are more comfortable with the people who write the
Washington Post
and the New York Times than
with the Middle Americans whose votes they desperately
want and need.

It`s not easy to argue that a party
able to win the White House and both houses of Congress
is the
Stupid Party,
but stupidity is largely a matter of
being unable to learn, and what this election tells us
more than anything else is that, at least up until
Election Day, the Republican Party had learned nothing.

Nor has Mr. Brooks. He and his
neocon allies now have four more years to plot how to
derail the

Middle American Revolution
toward which this
election clearly points.

If Mr. Bush is

not stupid,
he`ll derail the neocons from the White
House now.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available
from

Americans For Immigration Control.

Click here
for Sam Francis` website. Click

here
to order his monograph
,
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future.