This November, liberals gnashed their teeth, tore their hair and wondered what would become of them. The Christian Right celebrated the glorious and triumphant return of “moral values.”

Ah, Thanksgiving break. How was yours?

As a Kerry supporter and a born-again Christian, I knew that consolation for my loss would be found in the comfort of my father’s liberal Jewish family and the optimism of my mother’s family of fundamentalists. But under the veneer of relatively good sportsmanship, I found a disturbing strain of intolerance — this time, where I least expected it. I was used to fending off ire from my mother’s family, but now I was being saddled with certain Armageddon by the people who share my last name (the other one). Family values, indeed!

No, wait. It’s not called “family values” anymore. According to that oft-cited survey of apparently unreliable exit-polled voters, it’s “moral values” — and 75 percent of those who found it 2004’s most salient issue voted for President Bush.

Picking Apart the Logic

How could they do it? My sneaking suspicion is that hardcore Republicans had no other choice (What other reason could they give? Iraq? The economy?). But “moral values” got Evangelicals, fundamentalists and born-agains to the polls for one simple reason. According to their assessment, Bush had ’em; Kerry didn’t.

In my opinion, this was less a narrow moral judgment than the fervent belief that Bush has a close, personal relationship with God. Karl Rove often speculated that thousands of born-agains stayed home in 2000 after Bush’s drunken driving admission. As a born-again Christian, I find that hard to swallow. That’s what’s so great about us — we’re very forgiving. We felt the need to be born again because we’ve seen sin from the bottom floor of the heated basement. If God can forgive us, we can forgive you. We’re optimists.

Rove was wrong about born-agains, and his subsequent victories prove it. Who else would forget the principle of parsimony — and their own economic interest — and give the president the benefit of the doubt? I understand the reasoning, even if misapplied. “Why, I’ve made mistakes in my life, too,” the thinking goes. “I’ve been the victim of terrible circumstances. As long as I had faith in the Lord, He answered my prayers — eventually. I trust in God. George Bush trusts in God. So I can trust in George Bush.”

Reality is a Tricky Thing

The problem with such logic is that Bush is just as poor a Christian “fundamentalist” as he is a constitutional “strict constructionist” or a fiscal “conservative.” While Rove and others tout Bush’s biblical values, Bush himself demonstrates an alarming unfamiliarity with the instruction manual. His supporters and detractors alike believe him to be a fundamentalist, and yet, in an October interview with Good Morning America, Bush said he believes Muslims probably go to heaven. Personally, I am not sure that they don’t, but Bush’s image is so firmly cemented that he was able to get away with a decidedly un-fundamentalist statement just days before the election.

As with his many other deeply-held beliefs, Bush subtly exploits the language of Christianity (mountains and valleys and glories, oh my!) without truly understanding or embracing its principles. He fits his religion and his conservatism into a pre-formed, narrow and often self-serving worldview. He surrounds himself with head-nodders, banishing those who would challenge him.

Perhaps he is unfamiliar with King Ahab, who nearly met disaster because he was reluctant to listen to a disapproving prophet. Perhaps the president should buckle-down and read a chapter in his “favorite book.” And stop making our Lord his yes-man.

Michelle Bowen-Ziecheck is a Communication graduate student. She can be reached at [email protected].