Joseph Sobran’s
Washington Watch

Faith and the Election

(Reprinted from the issue of November 18, 2004)

It was a relief to see that President Bush got more votes from Catholics than John Kerry did — about 52%. Kerry’s professions of “faith” and altar boyhood don’t seem to have fooled many people. It also transpires that his first marriage was never annulled, which didn’t stop him from taking Communion on the Sunday before the election.

Overt atheists don’t trouble me much. Faith, after all, is a gift not bestowed on everyone. The really shocking unbelievers, to my mind, are Catholics raised in the faith who are willing to put their immortal souls at risk by receiving Communion sacrilegiously. Anyone who does that must have little faith indeed.

One thing nobody expected was that this year’s election would set off so much discussion of religion and its role in public life. The Democrats are divided over whether to regard the outcome as a triumph of “religious fanaticism” or as a sign that they need to get a little religion themselves. Not that they see it as a divine warning, mind you; but vox populi is, for them, the nearest thing to vox Dei.

Some sore losers are weighing another option, less unthinkable than, say, praying: They are actually suggesting that the blue states, especially in the Northeast, consider seceding from the Union! Personally, I’m all for it; but I can’t help recalling that it was these same Northeastern states that, once upon a time, most bitterly opposed Southern secession. One hardly expected Bush-hatred to produce such intellectual ferment.

Two days after the election, Garry Wills, the liberal media’s favorite Catholic pundit, lamented in The New York Times that “many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin’s theory of evolution.” He went on to explain that America is now closer to its fundamentalist Islamic enemies than to the “Enlightenment values” it once shared with Europe. This from the author of Papal Sin and Why I Am a Catholic, in which he wrote that he considers himself orthodox because, while rejecting most Church teachings (such as the Immaculate Conception), he accepts the Apostles’ Creed! His exposition of the Creed doesn’t directly deny the Virgin Birth, but does subtly water it down; still, until now I don’t think he has directly said it’s a deplorable belief.

What “Enlightenment values” do believers in the Virgin Birth reject? According to Wills, “critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences.” One symptom he cites as proof of their hostility to these values is their opposition to “gay marriage.” Presumably the same logic would apply to any belief in the supernatural, miracles, or divine Revelation. I’m truly mystified that Wills (who is also, of course, pro-abortion) persists in calling himself a Catholic.

But this election wasn’t exactly a referendum on religion. True, one of Bush’s strengths was that he came across as more devout than Kerry. It also helped that he was flatly opposed to redefining marriage, maybe the most important subject on which Kerry waffled, proving himself a true Massachusetts liberal. Eleven states did hold referenda on the subject, and all of them roundly rejected “same-sex marriage.” The issue brought out the kind of voters who favored Bush. It wouldn’t have been an issue at all if the Supreme Court of Massachusetts hadn’t made it one.

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California said revealingly that the country wasn’t “ready” for sodomatrimony this year. This was hardly a repudiation of the whole crazy idea; it was a clear hint that the Democrats will keep fighting for it, hoping for a victory through the courts.

But the courts may no longer be a reliable instrument of liberal fanaticism, with Bush retaining the White House (and the Republicans increasing their bicameral majorities in Congress). Much of his Christian support came from voters who were precisely worried about facing Kerry appointees for the next four years, and the pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter ran up against such a furious reaction when he threatened to block Bush nominees that he was forced to back down to some extent.

Whether Bush is willing to fight for his judicial nominations — and whether he’s even willing to name judges and justices who would reverse Roe v. Wade — will be an important test of his mettle. He hasn’t promised to do this, but most of his supporters assume he will and will feel betrayed if he doesn’t. On the other hand, he campaigned hard for Specter’s re-election two years ago. We’ll see.

Bush’s own re-election is by no means a mandate for the Iraq war. About 75% of the voters for whom the war was the most important issue went for Kerry. Bush won in spite of the war, and his hawkish neoconservative backers have been severely tarnished by all the bad news from Iraq; “neocon” is now a familiar, and dirty, word inside the Beltway.

If Bush keeps taking their advice, he’s a slow learner. They nearly cost him the election. Though Bush won a second term in spite of them, they can still make his second term a failure. Yet they are all but claiming credit for his victory, and are continuing to proffer their wisdom on how to democratize the Islamic world.
 
In an Awkward Position

We must take note of another Kerry blunder: his choice of John Edwards as a running mate. Maybe it seemed like a great idea at the time, but in the end this allegedly brilliant campaigner couldn’t deliver the South, his own state — or even his own county!

The Democrats are in an awkward position. They command a large base, but it has reached its ceiling; and if they can’t appeal to the Republican base without losing much of their own. Nor can they make a convincing show of “getting religion” now, after committing themselves so strongly to every perversion short of pedophilia. (And on what principle, pray tell, can they object to that?)

Moreover, the Democrats have no promising presidential candidates in line for 2008. If you think Kerry was weak, try to find a better prospect. The only one being mentioned is Hillary Clinton, whom it’s so hard to take seriously that I marvel at the fury she inspires among Republicans. As a public figure, she’s already shopworn. The Democrats need new faces, not more old ones.

The Democrats’ defeat is, in its way, a sign of health. For the moment, that’s encouraging.


I’ll offer a few thoughts on God, Chesterton, and the secret of laughter in my monthly newsletter, SOBRAN’S. If you have not seen it yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the Subscription page of my website.

Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.

Joseph Sobran