The two words repeated the most following last week's election are "mandate" and "values," and nobody should pay much attention to either word. Both words are very misleading and don't represent what happened last week. It's not as bad as it seems these days - there is hope.
Bush and legions of smug conservatives have declared the election a vindication of the past four years and a "mandate" for the next four.
A popular vote split 51-48 is not a mandate in any way. It is the narrowest margin of victory for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson. If only a minute fraction of voters swung the other way in Ohio, everything would be different.
By the way, if a narrow popular vote victory legitimizes Bush's upcoming term, what does that say about his last term, when he lost the popular vote to Al Gore?
Anyway, if public opinion is ironclad vindication of what is right, as Bush seems to be claiming, consider these numbers: 56 percent of the country thinks we are headed in the wrong direction as a nation; 51 percent thinks the war in Iraq was not worth fighting; and 52 percent don't approve of Bush's performance as president.
So voters on Election Day weren't saying they approve of Bush and everything he's done, they were just uncomfortable going with Kerry. After a vicious campaign aimed almost solely at smearing Kerry rather than promoting Bush's "achievements" (how do you promote job losses and a quagmire in Iraq?), I suppose this is not surprising.
In addition, polls show a shocking 70 percent of Bush supporters think there is "clear evidence" Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaida; one-third thinks we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and over one-third thinks world opinion was in favor of the Iraq invasion. Even if you consider the election a "mandate," it would be a mandate from the grossly misinformed.
So enough about a "mandate."
Another term being used far too much this week is "values." As The New York Times pointed out, the only reason "values" are being made an issue is because a poll in Ohio indicated Bush supporters voted because of their "moral values."
Well of course they were voting their moral values - everyone does when they go to the polls.
I know I voted my moral values last Tuesday. When we go to war to liberate a country and end up killing 100,000 of its citizens, I think that is immoral.
When a president who purposely avoided war as a young man sends troops into battle - and then cuts their health benefits while they're fighting - that is immoral.
When a president tells certain people he considers to be degenerate that they don't have the right to pursue happiness and get married, I think that's immoral too.
The point is that people on both sides voted their moral values, and just because one side edged out a razor-thin victory, it does not mean their morals are correct.
Democrats should stop wringing their hands over appealing to so-called "value voters" - they are not worth the effort. They are the voters who think George W. Bush is a morally sound man; they are the voters who elected senators in Oklahoma and South Carolina who advocate the death penalty for abortion doctors and banning all single mothers and gays from teaching in public high schools.
A candidate would have to sacrifice tolerance, compassion, honesty and regard for human life to appeal to these "value voters." If that's what's needed, let them keep their vote. Instead, Democrats should work on convincing the nation their own set of values is correct.
There is still hope - there was no sweeping mandate last Tuesday. Conservative ideologues might have snuck out a narrow win, but if Democrats stake out clear and forceful positions they will win in 2008. That didn't happen this year - Iraq was an immoral war, but we only had a choice between two candidates who supported the invasion.
If Democrats finally take a real stand and redefine "values," 2008 will hold a much better result. If the Democrats become the opposition party they are supposed to be and stop capitulating to conservative ideology in order to appeal to "value voters," there can be hope. The tunnel is four years long, but there is light at the end if we work hard and stand up to Bush.
