So I hear there is an election in a few days. If you all can bear with some amateur punditry, I think that Bush is going to take it, walking away. Such a result would be satisfactory in some respects, but extremely threatening in others. I am not going to vote for the president, and, though I am out of step with most of my fellow believers on this, I do not see this as de facto support for Kerry.
First, one of the reasons I think that Bush is going to win handily is that I believe the practice of polling is radically flawed. The sample sizes are muddled and not large enough, and the money that is flooding the process is all flowing the wrong way. For an example of the first problem, it is problematic to interview 623 Americans and tell us that 52% of all Americans are supporting the president. And then, when you interview 729 different Americans a week later, and you now find 49% supporting the president, it is wrong-headed in the extreme to treat this as though it were a horse race, and that Bush has lost three points. But mark well, if Bush wins by eight points, this will be almost universally treated as though he “pulled away” in the stretch, and not as compelling evidence that the polls were all screwed up.
For an example of the second problem, who is being paid by whom to take these polls? Some of it is partisan polling of the kind that is found in the political parties, and some of it is partisan polling of the kind found in the media. But all of the parties have a dog in the fight. The political parties want to spin the momentum, and the media wants to sell their product — and a close race does that. If you really want a “poll” where the money is flowing in a direction that is not likely to skew the results, then look at the “polling” being done by bookies in London. If you were to go online to place a bet on the presidential election, what are the odds on Bush? Last I saw, he was well ahead. In effect, here is a pollster (the bookie) who is willing to risk his money to say that he is right. I wonder what would happen if conventional pollsters got paid the same way? A fun thought experiment.
So I don’t think George Bush is going to need my help at the polls, which is a good thing, because I cannot see my way clear to vote for him — even though on a number of issues, I would like to. I think he has handled the terrorists well, for the most part. I think he would be likely to appoint the kind of man to the Supreme Court that we need there, a man like Scalia or Thomas. And some of the issues where I differ strongly are not enough to require a no vote (his grotesque spending, for example).
But here, in summary, is the reason I cannot vote for him. George Bush is far more likely than any liberal Democrat to get evangelical Christians to justify and go along with a public square religious syncretism. As a matter of settled policy, Bush has observed Ramadan in the White House, conducted a polytheistic worship service in the National Cathedral, offered reverence in a Shinto shrine in Japan, and so on. Many of these things, if done by a liberal Democrat, would (rightly) have had Christians up in arms. But with Bush, they go along.
I do not blame him that syncretism is pervasive in the federal government. A good man might not be able to remove all the high places. Reformations sometimes take time. But participating in worship at the high places is another thing entirely.