By: Susan Vaughn

Oh, come on. It’s happened again. Remember “Moral Majority”, “Pro-life”, and “Family Values”? I don’t know if the newest addition to the media lexicon was fed from the Republicans or just a media snafu.

I wonder if voting for Kerry implies that I’m immoral. Why not “divisive social issues”? Why not, for accuracy sake, “red herrings”?

As a card-carrying, second wave feminist from the old days, I remember being stunned when people opposed to Roe V. Wade first used “pro-life”. We scrambled to come up with “pro-choice.” To this day, I do not understand why access to safe and legal abortion is even under discussion. No one is compelled to have an abortion if they don’t want one. And, men can’t ever have one, even if they wanted one. So, what’s the problem?

I can understand why gay marriages and civil unions are under debate – but not for “moral” reasons. I think it’s primarily an economic issue for employers who would have to provide benefits. However, I don’t recall that particular aspect of gay marriages being discussed. I don’t mean to get picky here, but isn’t marriage a sacrament in religious contexts? Does this mean we are going to start legislating religious dogma? Furthermore, what’s it to me if a gay or lesbian couple wants to form a more perfect civil union? It’s not as if heterosexual marriage has been such a great success. Trust me, I know. I spent a year working in domestic violence intervention and another 6 working with troubled kids from such families.

After all of CNN’s disclaimers about the inaccuracy of exit polling for predicting election outcomes, every commentator certainly has taken the “moral values” phrase as his or her own. Yet, no one has questioned the computer code in Diehbold’s machines or how neocon 327’s outspent liberal ones by a huge multiple.

If elections have come down to image, sound bytes, slogans and money, then we can replace Uncle Sam with the Sam of Wal-Mart fame.

I resigned myself long ago to being part of the “immoral minority”. And, I can understand why “access to safe and legal abortion as a private decision between a woman and her doctor” can be cumbersome. Don’t even get me started on “Family Values”. We never did figure out a comeback for that one, did we?

Now, it’s “moral values” as the decisive factor in this national election. Well, I think it’s immoral to occupy Iraq. I think it’s immoral to be intolerant of other people’s faith, atheism or agnosticism. I think it’s immoral that a single person in this country is homeless or hungry. And, I think it’s immoral to use the finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet for NASCAR racing.

So, I’m voting for “red herrings” or “dumbing down the issues for materialistic consumers” or “polarizing issues that have nothing to do with the election in order to raise funds". What’s your suggestion?

Susan Vaughn is a former teacher, media producer and organizational consultant. She lives in Oregon.