The American people have once again demonstrated that they are the most glorious on earth. The entire world ganged up on them to dump a moral president whose signature issue was a belief that people have a right to be free.
Europe mobilized its millions in the streets to show their hatred of this man and his ideals. The United Nations frowned at his speeches and treated him with contempt. Hollywood and the recording industry unleashed its superstars to prevail upon the American people that they dare not re-elect a monster. And Osama bin Laden released a video tape informing individual states that if they voted against Bush they would be free from terrorist attack. In the end, even American Jews abandoned this steadfast friend of the Israeli people and voted for Kerry at 80 percent.
Never in the history of the United States has more pressure been brought to bear on the American electorate to dump a leader whose values the world so loathed. But in the end, not the glamour of Hollywood, nor the threats of terrorists, nor the alienation of Europe, nor the condescension of the United Nations, could break the American people’s commitment to a moral presidency.
With all the pressure in the world to become like the rest of the world – overlooking genocide and making deals with tyrants – the American people voted to retain a faith-based presidency, even if it meant going it alone. Exit polls on Tuesday showed that morality – even more than security – was the single biggest issue animating American voters in the 2004 presidential contest.
The rise of the moral voter is an earthquake that has forever changed the American political landscape. Who would ever have seriously believed that morality would be the single biggest consideration for politicians? But there it is. Gone are the days when politicians can seek office merely by pandering to voters by promising them jobs, health care and pork. Now, politicians who want to connect with the electorate will be forced to articulate a powerful moral vision of something worth fighting for. Bush did this with his constant focus on the fight for human freedom and his pledge to protect the family.
And because morality – rather than a single man – was the big winner on Tuesday, it is crucial for Bush supporters to exhibit graciousness and humility in victory. To act otherwise would be to spoil the victory by undermining what it represents. It was not Bush, but the values he embodies, that was the real victor on Tuesday. The moral man is someone who never pursues power for power’s sake, but rather uses power solely to bring justice.
When American soldiers liberated Iraq, they were ordered not to raise any American flags lest the message go out that the United States, rather than the cause of freedom, was the real victor. The same is true of Bush’s re-election. Many Bush haters have accused the president and his supporters of being religious phonies, using moral language as a foil to steal from the poor and give to the rich. The only solid refutation of such scurrilous charges is an authentic humility in victory, proving that Bush and his followers sought the presidency not to gloat but to serve.
To be sure, there is an understandable feeling on the part of many of the president’s supporters that they have a right to revel in so hated a candidacy that ended up garnering more votes than any other in American history. Bush supporters were treated by many as backward, stupid and fanatical.
I personally can attest to the loss of some friendships, many lecture invitations, and a host of TV and media opportunities because of my steadfast support for the president, whom I described as one of the greatest leaders this country has produced. So why shouldn’t we express triumph? Indeed, many are. More than a few of my radio colleagues used their time since Tuesday for payback, offering rants of the oh-look-who-is-the-big-loser-now variety and attacking the Democrats for being in utter disarray.
But while understandable, those who indulge in revenge attacks and condescending rhetoric to political opponents make the mistake of personalizing the initial attacks against them and the subsequent vindication and victory. The hatred shown Bush was not for a man, but for a moral cause. It was the same hatred that those who speak openly of God have experienced in modern times from others who are convinced that such talk betrays ignorance, superstition and a lack of sophistication.
This election was never really about Bush, Kerry or even Iraq. Nor was it a referendum on conservative vs. liberal. Rather, it was a challenge to the very notion of whether faith-as-policy had any place in a modern, technologically advanced republic. And the victory was not for a man and his followers but for a belief in right and wrong and how religious conviction must be first translated into protecting human life through a fight against tyranny and state-sponsored murder.
Those who gloat over the blow inflicted on Bush’s opponents betray an arrogance which in turn betrays a lack of commitment to moral principles, thereby eroding the cause for which the victory was sought. Michael Moore and Al Gore can rant all they like that Bush is religious fraud, that he went into Iraq for oil and power rather than security and humanitarian concerns. Why vindicate their mean-spiritedness with a mean-spiritedness of our own? Why trivialize a moral victory by making it a personal victory? Right and wrong does not belong to President Bush or any of the people who voted for him, but is rather the eternal inheritance of all of God’s children, and in that sense, even those who voted against Bush share in his victory.
Rather than immaturely socking it to Democrats or liberals, we Bush supporters are far better off clamoring in the next few days for Bush to prove his naysayers wrong by launching a forceful program to end the genocide in the Sudan and continue the fight for freedom.
I am well aware that many Americans approach the increasing religiosity and moral commitment of the body politic with foreboding. They fear a theocracy that will be oppressive and infringe upon their rights. It is for Bush supporters to refute this unjust fear by demonstrating not only magnanimity in victory but a deep commitment to harmony and unity. For instance, we may not all agree on abortion. But both right and left certainly agree that it is wrong for a man to get a woman pregnant and leave her. So let us at work together on ending the culture of irresponsible male womanizing which leads to the issue of abortion coming up in the first place.
In behaving modestly in victory, Bush’s supporters have no better example than the president himself. Many things have impressed me about this president over the past few years, but perhaps none more so than his refusal to respond in kind to those who called him a liar and compared him to Hitler. Here was the most powerful man on earth who consistently ignored the savage attacks on his character and instead went humbly on with his work.
The American people have rewarded this humility with a considerable mandate, which I trust he will continue to use over the next four years to fight evil and pursue justice.