Much reflection on the web after the US election result. To cut to the quick, the role and rise of fundamentalism has been commented on by Andrew Sullivan:
What we're seeing, I think, is a huge fundamentalist Christian revival in this country, a religious movement that is now explicitly political as well. It is unsurprising, of course, given the uncertainty of today's world, the devastating attacks on our country, and the emergence of so many more liberal cultures in urban America. And it is completely legitimate in this country for such views to be represented in public policy, however much I disagree with them. But the intensity of the passion, and the inherently totalist nature of religiously motivated politics means deep social conflict if we are not careful. Our safety valve must be federalism. We have to live and let live. As blue states become more secular, and red states become less so, the only alternative to a national religious war is to allow different states to pursue different options. That goes for things like decriminalization of marijuana, abortion rights, stem cell research and marriage rights. Forcing California and Mississippi into one model is a recipe for disaster. Federalism is now more important than ever. I just hope that Republican federalists understand this. I fear they don't.
(This calls to mind Rowan Williams' view that fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, a reaction to anxiety induced by scientific rationalism.)
Scott Rosenberg on the divisions: 'What's disturbing is how clearly split the country is geographically. The red/blue split first noticed in 2000 looks less like an anomaly of a tight election and more like a long-term alignment of the American people: The coasts, the Northeast, the Midwest -- almost anywhere that people are gathered in big cities -- for the Democrats; the West and the South for the Republicans.'
Civicspace (via Marc's Voice)
This from BBC News: 'Religion - rather than class, ethnic origin or education - has become the key determinant of voting in the 2004 presidential race, according to an exit poll conducted by the Associated Press news agency. And moral issues were more important for voters than Iraq, the war on terrorism, or the economy. According to the exit poll, 22% of the electorate said "moral values" was the issue that mattered most in how they voted [and these voters went for Bush nearly 80% to 20%] - compared to 20% who cited the economy, 19% who cited terrorism, and just 15% who said Iraq was the key issue.'
NYT (Nicholas Kristof): 'To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don’t need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.' I was led to this article by Crooked Timber, where Eszter Hargittai comments: 'Personally, I would prefer that religion was a more private affair. But one need not spend too much time in the United States to understand that religion is an incredibly important component of most people’s lives, and not such a private one for many. So it is not surprising that one ignores it at one’s peril.' In another Crooked Timber posting, Kieran Healy reinforces this line: 'Right now the Democrats don’t have a plausible spiel on morality. I don’t mean that they’re less likely to be moral people, just that they don’t have a coherent way of talking to their own base — let alone the electorate — about what they stand for in religious terms.' Both Crooked Timber postings refer to Amy Sullivan as a prescient commentator: her June 2003 article in the Washington Monthly, 'Do the Democrats have a prayer? To win in '04, the next nominee will need to get religion', can be read here.
Lawrence Lessig: 'Bush has won the popular vote. … Our criticism of this administration must now focus narrowly and sharply: on the policies, not on the credibility of the man.'
Liz Lawley: 'The irony is that at the end of the day, my life probably won’t be significantly disrupted by the results of this election. But many of the “heartland” people who voted for Bush—they’re the ones whose children will die in the war, whose health care will be stripped away, whose jobs will be at risk. And the people most likely to be drafted into this war didn’t care enough to vote—youth turnout was no higher this year than it was four years ago, it seems. Yes, I know that many people who didn’t vote for Bush—whether here or abroad—will be affected, as well. I’m not trivializing that. Just noting the irony that here in the US, Bush’s “base” is likely to suffer more than many of his detractors.'
Joi Ito gives a view from abroad: 'This was your chance to change your leader and you have failed. For a while, many of us thought that you had been conned into voting for Bush - that you didn't know he wanted to be a War President. Many people didn't equate the US policies with the people of America. We thought you had made a mistake. Now US policies = US Citizens. You have my sympathies, but it's still your fault.'
Ben Hammersley, writing from Florence, reminds us about an earlier attempt to get back to 'real Christian values', led by Girolamo Savonarola.
The Asia Times (link via Azeem), writing before the result was known: 'Bush was not elected by the majority in 2000. If he is really elected now - with or without the majority of the popular vote - this will send a strong signal to the whole world that Americans support the neo-con agenda. The sequence is predictable: more corporate tax cuts, an even more repressive Patriot Act, more wars in the Middle East, more geopolitical chaos. The stakes couldn't be higher. The crusading armies may legitimize "exporting death and violence to the four corners of the Earth". Or progressive America may rejoin reality and punish the Bush administration for what it is: an illegitimate aberration.'
Last word to Xeni Jardin, recording her father's words on hearing the news: "Get over it," he said, "The way you feel now is exactly how I felt when Nixon won a second term -- crushed. I just couldn't believe America was that stupid. But remember what happened to Nixon that term. Change comes from discontent," he said. "And right now, there's a lot of discontent."
