世界の窓

Answer: Whatever differences I felt with the elder Bush were over what was the right policy. There was much he ultimately did that I ended up admiring. And when George W Bush was elected four years ago on a platform of compassionate conservatism, after running from the middle, I assumed the same would be true with him. (Wrong.) But what troubled me Wednesday was my feeling that this election was tipped because of an outpouring of support for George Bush by people who don’t just favour different policies from me—they favour a whole different kind of America from me. We don’t just disagree on what America should be doing; we disagree on what America is.

Is it a country that does not intrude into people’s sexual preferences? Is it a country that allows a woman to have control over her body? Is it a country where the line between Church and state bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be inviolate? Is it a country where religion doesn’t trump science? And, most important, is it a country whose president mobilises its deep moral energies to unite us—instead of dividing us from one another and from the world?

At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation was really discussed. But at another level, without warning, it actually became about everything. Partly it was because so many Supreme Court seats are at stake, and partly it was because Bush’s base is pushing so hard to legislate social issues and extend the boundaries of religion that it felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up, the Constitutional Convention broke out.

The election results reaffirmed that. Despite an utterly incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Bush held onto the same basic core of states that he won four years ago—as if nothing had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on.

This was not an election. This was station identification. I’d bet anything that if the election ballots hadn’t had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, ‘‘Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?’’, the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way.

My problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and abroad. ‘‘The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics,’’ noted the Harvard University political theorist Michael J Sandel. ‘‘They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings—but turn them to progressive purposes.’’

I’ve always had a motto when it comes to politics: Never put yourself in a position where your party wins only if your country fails. This column will absolutely not be rooting for Bush to fail so Democrats can make a comeback. If the Democrats make a comeback, it must not be by default, because the country has lapsed into a total mess, but because they have nominated a candidate who can win with a positive message that connects with America’s heartland.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of talk that Bush has a mandate for his far right policies. Yes, he does have a mandate, but he also has a date—a date with history. If Bush can salvage the war in Iraq, forge a solution for dealing with our entitlements crisis—which can be done only with a bipartisan approach and a more sane fiscal policy—upgrade America’s competitiveness, prevent Iran from going nuclear, and produce a solution for our energy crunch, history will say that he used his mandate to lead to great effect. If he pushes for still more tax cuts and fails to solve our real problems, his date with history will be a very unpleasant one—no matter what mandate he has.

'Moral Values' Carried Bush, Rove Says / By ADAM NAGOURNEY

New York Times, November 10th, 2004

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 - President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, said Tuesday that opposition to gay marriage was one of the most powerful forces in American politics today and that politicians ignored it at their peril.

"This is an issue on which there is a broad consensus," Mr. Rove said, discussing a presidential election that took place as voters in 11 states backed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriages.

"In all 11 states, it won by considerable margins," Mr. Rove said, adding, "People do not like the idea or the concept of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman being uprooted and overturned by a few activist judges or a couple of activist local officials."

He said he was not certain that the votes necessarily helped Mr. Bush to defeat Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. He noted that Mr. Kerry had won Michigan and Oregon, where the amendments passed by large margins.

"I do think it was part and parcel of a broader fabric where this year moral values ranked higher than they traditionally do," he said, adding: "I think people would be well advised to pay attention to what the American people are saying."

Mr. Rove suggested that the Republican Party's success was even broader than some Democrats had acknowledged, citing increased Republican vote totals in states like Hawaii and Connecticut.

"You're starting to see some growth of the Republican Party in places where you might not think there was a chance for growth," he said.

Mr. Rove appeared to stifle a grin when asked whether he was "indebted" to Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, who opened his City Hall to gay marriages until he was blocked by a court, and to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, for ruling that gay couples have a right to marriage.

"If you look at things that intrude into American politics through a nontraditional method - through a judicial vein - they tend to have a huge impact," he said.

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Kerry met with Democratic leaders - Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the incoming Senate minority leader - as he prepared to return to the Senate.