Moral issues did in fact elect George Bush president. That does not mean that the minority that voted for John Kerry are without morals. It is absurd to think individuals that vote along strict party lines, either Republican or Democrat, have a monopoly on morality. Furthermore, present Democrat and Republican Party platforms are not distinguished from one another by the presence or absence of morality, but rather by the kind of morality.

      To illustrate the distinction, a brief discussion of two of the major issues that divide the Parties is in order—abortion and church/state issues. It is an official part of the Democrat’s political platform to support the right to abortion. Democrat filibusters of “conservative” Supreme Court justices, illustrate their willingness to do whatever it takes to preserve that right to abortion and to keep God officially out of government proceedings even if it means distorting history. Rather than lying to support an agenda, the Republican Party supports the original intent of our Constitutional Amendments verified by the prolific writings of our Founding Fathers. Furthermore, the Republican platform recognizes the systematic legalized slaughter of unborn children as an abomination, a horror in moral absolute terms. We are in the good company of our Founding Fathers in our belief that these types of issues are far more pivotal to our nation and its people than the debatable issues such as ecology, the economy, and the Iraq conflict.

      In her recent letter to the editor, Deanna Hanks Henderson wrote that we are “dumb”, guilty of “gung-ho arrogant attitude of the ‘American War Machine’ mob mentality”, “ultra-far-right-wing-Christian-conservative-extremists”, and George McLean recently called us “corrupt and sick”, “Middle America”, and imperialistic. Deanna says that voting for Bush because of moral values is an “oxymoron”, and that we are no different than “Muslim religious extremists in the Middle East” because she says “both would go to great lengths to legislate and enforce their own brand of morality”.

      It is easier and probably feels more safe and comfortable to stereotype us than to truly try to understand us. The fact is, those that voted for Bush cover the entire educational, IQ, and socioeconomic spectrum that can legally vote. Many are against U.S. involvement in the Iraq conflict. Many are not Theocrats. It is both noteworthy and fascinating that in their letters to the editor, Deanna and George repeatedly display their narrow mindedness—the same things that they criticize us for.

      The moral relativists, in what they think is “open-mindedness”, say that no one has a right to impose their morality on anyone else. This intellectually bankrupt philosophy has swept the nation in popularity, even though it can’t pass the slightest scrutiny. Honest moral relativists who have thought their position through and stick by it would have to support the rights of cat-killers, poachers, child-molesters, armed robbers, imperialists, and the most vicious despots. They’d have to say that no one had a right to try to stop Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot from orchestrating the killing of millions of people.

      Proponents of moral relativism themselves impose morality. Environmentalists impose their morality at the expense of free enterprise of loggers, mall-builders, etc. The ones that criticize us for imposing our moral stand against abortion would have no qualms about imposing morality by championing the legal rights of harbor seals, trees, bald eagles, and grizzly bears. They are self righteous in their opposition to all wars, yet they support the legalization of abortion in this nation that has brutally claimed the lives of close to 40 million unborn children. Our death toll from abortion far outstrips casualties on either side of all U.S. armed conflicts combined.

      Those that believe in moral absolutes have the capacity to integrate their belief system with honesty and rational thought. For the reasons stated above, moral relativism cannot withstand moral or intellectual scrutiny, and a completely honest moral relativist would have to choose to accept being irrational or change belief systems. Given the option, I’ll choose honesty and rational thought every time.

Annie Bukacek MD