Jessica
Vozel
Read Jessica's bio and previous columns here
October 22, 2007
Just Whose ‘Values’
Matter at the Values Voters Summit?
This weekend, six religious-right groups sponsored “The Washington
Briefing 2007: Values Voters Summit” in Washington D.C. Most Republican
presidential candidates – recognizing the importance of such a summit –
were in attendance, armed with tear-jerking speeches aimed at the hearts
of evangelical voters.
John McCain unleashed an anecdote from his prisoner-of-war days in
Vietnam: At Christmastime, one of his North Vietnamese captors drew a
cross in the ground in front of McCain with his shoe. Fred Thompson
fired back with more subtle ammunition that still brought the “values
voting” audience to their feet: The first thing he would do if elected
president would be to shut the door to the Oval Office and pray. Rudy
Giuliani, for his shot at an audience that was predisposed to be steely
towards him, described crossing himself on his first day at the New York
University Law School, to the confused glances of his classmates.
As proven in 2000, and again in 2004, evangelical voters have shaped the
direction of our country. These voters hold dear the ideals of
Christianity – sanctity of life and marriage, religious freedom,
combating Islamic radicals. And their voting record proves it.
But let’s deconstruct the words “values voters” for a minute. This term
connotes many things, including purity, morality, piety, superiority and
a recognition of its own importance in American elections. However, such
a connotation is not enough to define it. For “values voters” to hold
any meaning both as a political movement and as a term to describe
political evangelicals, there has to be something in opposition, a block
of “non-values voters”, if you will.
In their implicit definition, “non-values voters” describes the
non-evangelical segment of America, including the dreaded liberals, who
have no morality, no religious faith and, apparently, no concern for
values whatsoever.
Never mind that the “non-values voters” in America support a health care
plan for living children, support women who wish to have control over
their own bodies and lives, support working against religious extremism
but not with the death of thousands of innocent people, and support
homosexual men and women who want to share the same rights of marriage
as heterosexual couples. In the world of values voting, these values are
inferior to those that are backed by fundamentalist Christian faith.
This is where values voting as a political movement begins to erode.
Presumably, we all vote in a way that is relational to how we
view the world and the values we hold dear, and even some non-values
voters have a faith that defines their voting decisions. There is,
essentially, little moral difference between “values voters” and the
rest of us, even atheists, feminists and homosexuals.
The only difference are the talking heads, the Dobsons, Brownbacks and
Santorums, who spearhead the movement and assure everyone within it that
their values are more important, more urgent and more ethical than the
values of everyone else. Just because they say so, however, doesn’t make
it true.
They might cite God as their ultimate authority, the guy who determines
what is “values voting” and what isn’t, but would God not find caring
for our children’s health, treating those who are different as equals
and preserving life in the Middle East to be worthy values? Turning a
subjective text like the Bible into an objective guide, and even then
cherry-picking only certain passages to define “values”, does not afford
them a higher moral authority passed down from God.
As far as the candidates themselves, shouldn’t there be inherent value
in uniting the country rather than further dividing it by pandering to
the values of the extreme right?
When Giuliani spoke on Saturday, he highlighted what unites him not with
the entire country, but with the evangelical movement – his record of
reducing crime in New York City, including the sins of drug use and
prostitution, among other things. Giuliani’s very message, and the fact
that he was invited to speak at the Summit despite being pro-choice,
evidences the subjectivity of values voting.
Certainly, evangelical values voters will continue to have immense
influence despite the instability in the definition of what they
promote. However, maybe they should pause and acknowledge that they
aren’t the only values voters who can, or hopefully will, make a
difference in 2008.
© 2007
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This
is Column # JV027.
Request permission to publish here. |