Many people nowadays say that they are not "issues people" and that they only vote for politicians due to their morals and religion. Why ? why vote for bush just because he is more religious? So is America becoming more religious? Is this a positive change or a negative change? Do you think education is one of the factors for this change? I am writing a research paper on this...I am open to any ideas that will inspire me to think critically about this subject matter. Please reply even if you don't think it will help.
People still don't understand that Bush is just a puppet and that "religion" is simply a means to rally the phony Christian-right, which makes up a large portion of the country. The more religiously radicalized government becomes, the more polarized the nation becomes, and that is what they want. It's all part of an agenda, and it's one largely conducted though the media and psychological manipulation. People who vote based on "morals" do so because they're brainwashed maggots.
Most of the religious people vote on the "morals" because they can't understand the specialized language of the "issues." Or they just don't give a shit about them.
People vote on morals, because morals are directly connected to social issues, no offense, but all you people who call people that vote on morals brainwashed or idiots who can't understand issues, well I hate to break it to you, but you vote on your morals too, it's just yours are much different then the people you insult.
Except all those who claim to vote based on morals have routinely voted for the most immoral and corrupt people. Thus proving their "moral" vote to be nothing more than social conditioning and willfull blindness to whats being done by those they choose.
People who are anti-abortion, and pretty much believe in that above any other cause would have voted for bush because that way the republicans can fill the a projected 3 seats on the supreme court. This would ofcourse lock up pretty much the entire government in the hands of the Republicans, and they hope that they can live with that as long as abortion is outlawed....
If people are willing to let their religious beliefs determine their political choices, then politicians will try to appeal to this by framing campaign issues in a moral or religious context. The Republicans did this quite well in the 2004 campaign. They also made use of moral wedge issues to rally their supporters. For example, the proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and the stem cell issue appealed to people's religious and moral conscience, even though they may not be considered as over-riding national problems. Note that the gay marriage issue was on the ballots in 11 states, three of which were battleground states (Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri). Having that issue in battleground states kept it in the minds of the voters when they were making their choice for President. Those who felt it was an important moral issue may have been swayed to vote for Bush. The Democrats raised serious problems during the campaign, such as the huge national debt, the trade deficit, the problems in Iraq, social security, slow economy, etc, but they didn't put these issues in a moral context. If they wanted to, the Democrats could make these moral issues. For example, one can claim that damaging the environment is immoral or that running up debts that our children will have to pay is unethical. Democrats simply chose not to put these issues in a moral context, which would have likely helped them if they had done so. They instead chose to put them in a more rational, secular context. Sometimes putting issues in a religious or non-rational type of context will sway people better. The psychological tactics that are used in advertising are an example. Many people will literally impose a monopoly on themselves and stick with a particular brand of product because the advertising of it appealed to their emotions, even if the choice they made was irrational and another product was better. Political campaigns aren't much different. Politicians will use whatever tactics sway the most people to their side, even if the argument is irrational.
Note that Bush didn't say much about abortion during the campaign. The main reason was that it is a very volatile issue and taking a stand on it may have alienated him from women voters. Instead, the GOP chose the stem cell issue which is less volatile than abortion, yet raises moral right-to-life type of issues which Bush supporters are sensitive to. It's a way of bringing up a moral issue similar to abortion but one that is not nearly as volatile and which doesn't alienate the women vote.
When asking many people Bush supporters I know, my age, younger and older, these were the two most popular responses concerning the reason(s) they chose that candidate. "I will never support a president who is pro-abortion." or "George W. Bush is a man of God." I'm not even kidding; a lot of this spewed from the mouths of intelligent adults- some of which are my family members. I don't know, maybe I am out of touch with things or am failing to see the big picture. Nevertheless, manipulation is apparently very effective when trying to appeal to the religious zealots of this country.
Yes, its very interesting when they say "He is Godsend" , is the media brainwashing people into this? why are people unable to "Think"? Why is faith so strong compared to critical thought and reason?!
So do you think people were like this always or is this religious thing a new trend? So are we all basically no better than mindless goats or something? Can we not think? Are we so easily swayed by psychological tricks? So if a presidential candidate says anything he wants and just attaches a religious tag on it and it gets him into the oval office? Thats really dangerous.
Yes it is really dangerous. Bush certainly casts himself as a man of god. If he really is or not really doesn't matter. As far as this being a new thing, I think it certainly isn't. What is really new is that about half of American's view themselves as non-religious (even many who would describe themselves as Christian). A hundred years ago when 85% or more of Americans were practicing Christians this was a mute issue. No candidate could get anywhere withjout being perceived as religious. Now the even devide in America means that you must alienate one-side to relate to the other. I think Kerry did a pretty good job of sharing his beleifs, but distancing himself from being a religous man. However, the religous vote really came out in droves - mostly because of the same-sex marriage issue. By the next election statistics predict that less than 43% of Americans will describe themselves as religous. As long as turnout tends to be even on both sides of the issues the religous right should loose power consistently. So what do you vote based on... Popularity? Looks? Conspiracy theories? Rebelion? If you don't vote on your morals, then I am not sure you need to be voting.
Boy you got that one right. I'm reminded of a story I recently watched on Bill Moyers NOW program (NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Indian Gaming Scandal | PBS ) Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and public relations consultant Michael Scanlon quietly worked with conservative religious activist Ralph Reed to help the state of Texas shut down an Indian tribe's casino in 2002, then the two quickly persuaded the tribe to pay $4.2 million to try to get Congress to reopen it. Now, I mention this particular incident because of the self proclaimed moral high horse biggy Ralph Reed more than the others, tho the others have strong ties to Tom Delay, the one whom the Republicans just decided to make "untouchable". What really disturbed me about this was the fact that this tribe had managed to pull itself up by the "bootstraps" so to speak. The casino employed around 1100 people and the money it made was being used to improve the community. They built a Wellness Center, were providing healthcare for their people and numerous other community oriented initiatives. Now, since the Casino was closed the government I suppose can pick up the tab via unemployment claims, the uninsured and most likely welfare. Then the government will turn around and talk about poverty amongst the Indians as if it is some sort of insolvable disease. They just don't get it. And, Ralphie Reed can certainly take his message to God. "Lord, I helped close another sinful gambling institution. Yeah, I did put people out of work and I did take away their livelihood, and their ability to care for their elderly and sick, and now many are probably living in poverty...but hey, that sinful Casino is history!" Thus we have the Repulican "moral values" quagmire. They really don't have a clue, in my opinion, what REAL moral values are. Yet we find their so-called moral values creeping more and more into our politics each and every day that they are in office. I know gay people and people who have had an abortion who have more morality in their little finger than the entire lot of those self-proclaimed moralists upon the Hill.
The approach seems to have worked the past couple presidential elections in the U.S. Not everyone is swayed by these tactics, but in close elections the ability to sway people by whatever means can determine who wins. I can't speak for others, but I prefer using at least some minimal level of practical reason when chosing a candidate. Others may find the religious or moral background of the candidate the overriding factor. Chosing by reasoning and intelligence is often more difficult than a religious or moral litmus test. Note how advertising agencies use methods such as emotional appeal far more often than intellectual appeal. Why? Because all of us have emotions but not all have a high degree of intellect. I'm not being derogatory, just stating a fact. All of us appeal easily to emotions. On a comical note, the presidential elections in the U.S. have gotten almost like those old Steve Martin sketches on Saturday Night Live: 'Theodoric of York, Medieval Doctor'. You'll recall that he would forego practical reason in favor of religious and superstitious methods that would end up killing his patients.
** Jedi OK in reply I give you this bit of mental doodling – Why do we vote people into power? There is an argument that people have now a limited view of what government can do (or should be able to do) and this idea is very widely held in the US. You might say that there are three area of a society which a peoples government should be concerned, the social, economic and cultural, it is difficult to separate them since they are so entwined with causes and effects crossing the boundaries. But many have come to believe that the economic area has become separated from government control (is perceived to be or should be). It is said the economic realm has become ‘global’ company has to compete ‘globally’, the markets are ‘global’ we have to live with the effects of ‘globalisation’. It is a tenet of the right that governments have no right and are not very good at managing economics that the markets are the only true way for an economic system to work. Many have the idea that individual hard work is more important to economics than a communal fiscal policy. So if people think that either the politicians have little control over the economy or that they shouldn’t what is left, social and cultural. But the thing is that in many western societies especially the US the dominant culture is consumerism, which is market driven and fits into that area that many Americans believe is beyond their control or should be. What are the symbols of status in US culture, is it civic service or an SUV? Who are the cultural Icons, rich sports players, wealthy pop singers, and corporate leaders? The alternative to consumerism is what? Well a lot of the alternative political movements maybe anti-market and anti-consumerism but that also makes them economic in character and worthless or silly in many American eyes. So they turn to solace from a market led consumerist, capitalist economy and culture in religion. So what do they vote people in to do, if they don’t think politicians can effect the economic sphere (or shouldn’t) what do they think they can effect, well social matters. And since their compartmentalised viewpoint sees the social issues are part of the separate from economics it is in the same box as their religious beliefs and so they see the two connected. We vote people into power to do things we want them to do but also only what we think they can do. **
I don't think social issues are connected with religious issues. They are entirely different. If they were connected then why would the constitution have the seperation of church and state? The fact is that they are different, but I agree that people cannot find any distinction between them and that is really dangerous... Kerry and other democrats ( opposition party) gave many reasonable issues that have to be worked with . For example, huge financial deficit, jobs and other things, but they lost. It is bush who said "I did what I thought was right" , " We went in to get saddam and we got him" etc. "People of Iraq are safer because we got rid of torture and rape rooms"...
