The Loyal Opposition

I decided to let a few days pass before commenting on the election. Since Wednesday morning, I've heard repeated calls for liberals and conservatives to set aside their differences and work together for the good of the country. Mike seems to think this is a pretty solid idea. To Mike and all the others calling for unification: prepare to be disappointed. I, for one, have no intention of tempering my criticisms of this ridiculous excuse for an administration. Nothing has changed since Tuesday. Not. One. Thing. In fact, the two days since the election have increased my apprehension. Bush is escalating the war in Iraq (expect a major assault on Fallujah ASAP--the election is complete and political fallout is no longer a concern) and pushing a legislative agenda that includes privatizing social security, increasing tax cuts to the wealthy (it'll help the poor--voodoo economics, folks), and pushing his religious beliefs (abstinence only sex education, faith based welfare reform, another attempt at a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage). Oh, yeah. I'll unite on all those issues. Where do I sign up?

I'm also sick and tired of all this talk about "morals" and "values." Does anyone even know what these terms really mean? Save yourself the trouble of looking them as I did it for you.

Moral. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the term "moral" means: "1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action"

Value. Referring to Merriam-Webster once again, a value is "something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable ."

Taken together, a discussion of "morals" and "values" centers on issues of right/wrong, good/bad, just/unjust as well as the actions, behaviors, and virtuous qualities exhibited by the members of our culture. It strikes me that the U.S. American press and people have confused egocentric religiosity with "morals" and "values." Casting a vote based on whether a leader supports a woman’s right to choose isn’t moral, it"s an attempt to foist your religious belief on others. Taking an anti-abortion stance may be "moral" from your particular point of view, but it isn't the just choice for an entire nation. Voting to define marriage as a union between a man and woman isn't moral either. Instead, that's the institutionalization of religious belief (and a bigoted one at that). If a person wants to believe a marriage is between a woman and man, that's their personal right. I fail to see, however, how formally denying an entire group of people civil rights is remotely moral. Ridding Iraq of evil-doers (I won’t even get into how the term "evil" is subjective) seems like a moral act. Once you factor in the deaths of 100,000 innocents, the act doesn't seem so just.

And that's what I think is at stake over the next four years. Our country has a fundamental divide over what constitutes moral action. On one side of the schism stands those who would push personal, religious morals on the majority of the country via legislation. On the other side stands those who push for a more altruistic, public form of morality. The latter, of course, requires that people put aside their personal belief and allow others to live their lives as they see fit. Take my beliefs regarding gun control, for instance. Personally, I see absolutely no need for private ownership of handguns. Handguns have one solitary purpose: to kill human beings. My personal belief, grounded in my spiritual practice, is that handguns are a tremendous source of destruction in our country and that our country would probably be a less violent place without them. Despite my complete personal commitment to non-violence, banning handguns would not be the right decision for our country. While my private morality moves me to speak out against personal handgun ownership, my sense of public morality suggests the choice to own a handgun should be protected.

Will I join with the people who granted Bush a second term? I don't think there's any chance of that. I cannot side with people who attempt to push their religious agenda on an entire nation. I will continue to rant on this blog and I will continue to debate the people I encounter in my day-to-day interactions. I will continue to attend protests and I will do my best to oppose most of the Bush administration’s policies. 59 million people may have voted him into office, but I didn't. 59 million people may agree with Bush and his policies, but I don't. These calls for "unity" and "healing" are nothing more than an attempt to get dissenters like me to stop raising a ruckus. While I won't engage in the hyperbole of "mass emigration" and "revolution" espoused by many of my progressive colleagues, I do agree the nation is in for four more years of disastrous decisions. Four more years of war, corporate cronyism, and threatened civil rights. If I feel our country is headed in the wrong direction, how can I NOT speak out?

I have a sign hanging above my desk at school that reads, "Courage begins with one voice." I intend to use my voice to the greatest extent possible.