If the Democrats accept this young support, it is not particularly pragmatic. It is a known fact that the youth do not vote in particularly. It is also a known fact that both gay marriage and abortion were big issues in this particular election-perhaps bigger than terrorism and Iraq; the Catholic Church was outright telling people not to vote for Kerry (and stating that he should be denied communion). As far as the gay marriage issue is concerned, I am not convinced if the support of the right of gays to wed among my fellow northerners, let alone gays themselves-gay support for Kerry seemed to be not as enthusiastic as one might think-Kerry’s margin among gays didn’t improve particularly much since 2000-although the issue did mobilize many Americans (Some who are even moderate) against Kerry. Kerry, on the subject of abortion, was the same way. We get a perception, therefore, of Kerry’s stance on these two issues as such: I believe marriage should be for a man and woman, or I am personally opposed to abortion, but am not willing to pass any legislature on these matters. Kerry’s main radical base-whom do not represent Kerry (yet claimed to and were very outspoken)-were of course the focal point for attacking Kerry, as radical, atheist, so on and so forth. In fact, it is very plausible to speculate that these issues those which finally caused Iowa and New Mexico to swing to the red state column, while maintaining Ohio and Colorado and keeping Bush competitive in Wisconsin.

The core Democratic base is different than this base. Many people who supported Kerry were very different than these people. Many people who voted for Kerry are indeed in touch with what most of America wants-Kerry, after all, picked up not much less than half the national vote. Most of these people voted for Kerry because they wished to see four years of change from the current leadership, for if they did not wish to see change, they would vote for Bush. By (even if only perceived to be) shunning God, the Democrats are in effect alienating a larger portion of the American electorate-and handing the election over to the conservatives. The Democratic Party has to re-establish itself as the “Freedom of Religion” party it once was-why many Catholics and Jews to this day are Democrats, and shed itself of the “Freedom From Religion” party it is perceived, which has successfully over the last 32 years cost it many votes from both Catholics and Jews. At the same time, it must paint its opponents as a “Freedom to Religion” party that will play divisions of religions towards each other and to atheists to exert political influence and influence legislation. Even today, many people are stating-such as Ralph Nader-that the Democratic Party needs to become more liberal; perhaps it could, in some ways, be more liberal-but definitely not on these particular issues; if one accepts atheism as a type of religion, then the “Freedom From” argument makes the Democratic Party, through its radical left-wing, as conservative as the Religious Right. Until the Democratic Party shows itself as willing to accept the Freedom of “God, Guns and Country” (opposed to the Republican Freedom to), it might be a long time until we see a Democrat in the White House.

Thought Jarred often gets a lot of flack for various reasons not closely associated with reality, I think that his analysis here, and in the rest of his article, is quite impressive. Religion is indeed becomming more important in some ways, especially with the rise of Mormons, Muslims, the petering out of the mainline Protestant sort of things, and the rapid conversion of people to Catholicism in the U.S., especially noteworthy since the converts to Catholicism by themselves form one of the largest religious groups in the US. Mark Shea once calculated that if the current trend continued, the whole world would be Catholic by 2050. Grr for diminishing returns to scale.

The McGovernization is, I think, the most troubling thing going on with the Dems today, and it cost them a large chunk of the votes of the people I know. I mean, I associate with a fair number of orthodox Catholics, so it's bad to extrapolate up, but it seems like a pretty important category in my mind. Add in the Roe Effect and the future's a little disturbing.

I was also amused by the ISO on campus and how they're complaining about how Kerry was far too conservative in this election to possibly get elected. All I can say to that is shudder. A man who supports "post-birth abortion" and he's too conservative. I'd hate to see their ideal candidate.