Every democratic society consists of essentially two parties. The first party, which for the sake of simplicity we refer to as the conservatives, builds its platform upon a single, fundamental plank: the preservation of the status quo. The conservative party is satisfied with the current conditions of society, and opposed to change.
The conservatives are therefore the rich people, the heads of state, and other men of influence, who are happy with their high positions and have no wish to be ousted therefrom.
The other party represents everyone else. Everyone who is not rich will naturally ally himself with this other party – the liberals – in hopes of seizing, through the legitimate processes of government, some of the riches and power which dwell, by their very nature, with the conservatives.
The liberals have a much broader base of appeal, since there are far more poor people than rich people. The conservatives have more wealth, which is as useful in politics as it is anywhere else. These two advantages, majority versus wealth, have historically tended to preserve a balance of power between the two sides, and prevent either from becoming too popular.
In the United States, the conservative party is of course called the “Republican” party, and as a demonstration of its conservatism, we now provide a few figures from the last election. The percentage of voters from each tax bracket, beginning with sub-$15,000 and ending with $200,000+ who voted for George Bush: 36%, 42%, 49%, 56%, 55%,57%, 58%, 63%.
This is the way democracy works: there is a rich man’s party, and a party (or multiple parties) for everyone else. Such was the political situation in ancient Athens and Rome, and such it is today in America and throughout most of Europe.
Now, it is clear to any discerning person that the “right” party, ethically, is the liberal party. If the function of government is to serve its citizens, certainly that government is best which confers benefits on the greatest number of its populace. Conservatism benefits only the rich, liberalism benefits everyone. Therefore, liberalism is better.
As the world has progressed further and further along this winding, bog-ridden road we call “civilization,” the forces of liberalism have, in the main, triumphed over conservatism. In Europe (the center of civilization for 2,000 years), the rich are taxed to a merciless degree, and their money is invested in such useful projects as universal health care, mass transit, and free higher education.
In America, however, there has been no such triumph of liberalism. In America, health-care is a constant source of worry to millions of low-income families. Instead of using a subway or reliable bus-system, impoverished citizens are forced to fill their cars with $3-a-gallon gas and countless low-income boys and girls are deprived of higher education.
So then what the hell is wrong with America? Are we stupid, or what? Why can’t we apply the principles of liberalism which so many other countries have successfully put into practice?
The answer may be given in single word: and that word, I am afraid, is “Christianity.”
By rights, poor Christians, or poor Satan-worshippers for that matter, ought to belong to the Democratic party. However, the Republican party over the years has adopted as planks of its platform certain moral stances, calculated to appeal to the impoverished Christian. The Republicans are opposed to abortion, opposed to gay marriage, opposed to gambling, opposed to pornography. In this way, the Republican party has won over to its side an enormous subsection of the poor population.
In the previous election, the popular vote was a mere 51% to 49% in favor of our current President. However, 67% of white Protestants, 56% of white Catholics, 58% of those who attend church once a week, and 64% of those who attend church more than once a week voted for Bush.
These statistics demonstrate that a solid majority of churchgoers voted Republican. Since this solid majority of churchgoers are not rich, and therefore ought to be Democrats, we see that this creation of a “religious right” represents a huge, even a decisive, victory for Republican America.
So what is to be done? How can the Democratic Party, the party of the people, overcome the imbalance created by these religious holdouts and reassert the dominance which it ought rightly to hold?
Well, as everyone knows, it is about as easy to change the opinions of a religious person as it is to hit Neptune with a slingshot, so all we can hope for is gradual change. But nothing lasts forever and someday Christian America will realize that morality has nothing to do with sexuality, and that abortion is, at the very worst, a necessary evil. On that day the power will revert back to the Democrats, which is to say the people of America, where it belongs.
E-mail Jeff at [email protected]
