Chapter One
America’s Common Beliefs – and Strong Differences
The most controversial issues being addressed within our nation will be
discussed in the following chapters. It will be helpful to understand the
prevailing personal opinions of American citizens, their differences and
similarities, how they have been modified or remain the same, and whether
they are compatible with the profound political changes taking place in
our country.
Stronger and sharper partisan differences have evolved among Americans in
recent years, quite a departure from when I was in the White House. In
those days, I had a good “batting average” in having my proposals accepted
by the Congress, and the political divisions were based much more on
issues than on whether members were Democrats or Republicans. As a
Southern moderate and former career naval officer, I espoused a
conservative fiscal policy and a strong defense. A commitment to human
rights came, I guess, from my personal knowledge of the devastating effect
of racial segregation in my region of the country.
Soon after arriving in Washington, I was surprised and disappointed when
no Democratic member of Congress would sponsor my first series of
legislative proposals – to reorganize parts of the federal bureaucracy – and
I had to get Republicans to take the initiative. Thereafter, my
shifting coalitions of support comprised the available members of both
parties who agreed with me on specific issues, with my most intense and
mounting opposition coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
(One reason for this was the ambition of Senator Ted Kennedy to replace me
as president.)
Nowadays, the Washington scene is completely different, with almost every
issue decided on a strictly partisan basis. Probing public debate on key
legislative decisions is almost a thing of the past. Basic agreements are
made between lobbyists and legislative leaders, often within closed party
caucuses where rigid discipline is paramount. Even personal courtesies,
which had been especially cherished in the U.S. Senate, are no longer
considered to be sacrosanct. This deterioration in harmony, cooperation,
and collegiality in the Congress is, at least in part, a result of the
rise of fundamentalist tendencies and their religious and political
impact.
Fortunately, this degree of rigidity and confrontation has not yet taken
hold among the general public. In preparing this book I have searched for
the best assessments of American public opinion, so that I could
understand the reasons for, and the extent of, agreements and divisions
among our people.
A strong majority of both Democrats and Republicans agree that our country
is more politically divided than at any time in living memory, a fact that
is partially explained by the doubtful presidential election of 2000 and
the almost unchanging split during the following years between “red” and
“blue” states. Partisan differences of support and disapproval of our two
most recent presidents are quite clear, with the personal popularity of
President Bush among Democrats lower than was President Clinton’s among
Republicans while his impeachment proceedings were under way. The ongoing
Iraqi war is especially indicative, with diametrically opposite opinions
on whether the conflict is going well or has improved national security.
These sharp disagreements might be written off as just partisan wrangling,
but their impact on our nation’s present and future international policies
is significant. Among Republicans, the percentage endorsing diplomacy in
preference to military action is minimal, while Democrats take the
opposite point of view. In the approach to combating terrorism, two-thirds
of Republicans believe that use of overwhelming force is best, while an
even larger proportion of Democrats think that, although our armed forces
should be used when our nation’s security is threatened, excessive use of
military action tends to increase animosity against our country and breed
more terrorists. This sharp and growing difference over the issue of
whether international disputes can be better resolved by diplomacy or by
military action is now the most accurate predictor of party affiliation – more
important than gay marriage, homosexuality, or abortion.
It is encouraging that Americans overwhelmingly agree on several important
questions: the value of religion in individual lives, the power of
personal initiative to realize human potential, the need to protect the
environment even if that is costly, doubt about the integrity of big
business, and a desire for federal obscenity laws against hard-core
pornography to be enforced vigorously.
Although the number is small, four times as many Republicans as Democrats
think that tough environmental laws hurt the economy. There has been a
substantial increase in the number of Republicans who have confidence in
government, with little difference now between the parties in that regard.
Americans also increasingly support more government assistance for the
poor and needy, but one remaining difference is that many more Republicans
than Democrats believe that poor people have easy lives. It is encouraging
that this prejudice against the poor is decreasing significantly among all
Americans.
There are strong differences about social issues, but many opinions are
changing and most of them have little clear impact in the political arena.
The intensity of feeling about controversial issues is often much more
important than the numerical divisions. This is especially apparent when
the subject of debate is abortion or gun control, where the opinion of a
persistent majority of Americans has had little effect in the political
world.
A majority of Americans think that abortions should be legal in all or
most cases, and only one in six believes that all abortions should be
illegal. The fervor and activism of this small minority greatly magnify
their influence, especially within the U.S. Congress.
Concerning gun control, an overwhelming majority believe in the right to
own weapons, but four of five Americans prefer modest restraints on
handguns, including a background check, mandatory registration, and a
brief waiting period before one is purchased.
A disturbing change in government policy has involved the firearms
industry. Supported by succeeding Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton,
legislation was passed by Congress in 1994 that for ten years prohibited
the manufacture, transfer, and possession of nineteen specific
semiautomatic assault weapons, including AK-47s, AR-15s, and UZIs. None of
these are used for hunting – only for killing other humans. More than
eleven hundred police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation called on
Congress and President Bush to renew and strengthen the federal assault
weapons ban in 2004, but with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby
prevailed and the ban expired.
This is not a controversy that involves homeowners, hunters, or
outdoorsmen. I have owned and used weapons since I was big enough to carry
one, and now own a handgun, four shotguns, and two rifles. I use them
carefully, for harvesting game from our woods and fields and during an
occasional foray to hunt with my family and friends in other places. We
cherish these rights, and some of my companions like to collect rare
weapons.
But many of us who participate in outdoor sports are dismayed by some of
the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and by
the timidity of public officials who yield to their unreasonable demands.
Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, their primary
client, the NRA, has been able to mislead many gullible people into
believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that
homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our
families. There are no real threats to our “right to bear arms,” as
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If so, the NRA efforts would
certainly be justified.
In addition to assault weapons, the gun lobby protects the ability of
criminals and gang members to use ammunition that can penetrate protective
clothing worn by police officers on duty, and assures that a known or
suspected terrorist is not barred from buying or owning a firearm – including
an assault weapon. The only criteria that the NRA has
reluctantly accepted are proof of a previous felony, mental derangement,
or being an illegal immigrant. Deeply concerned when thirty-five out of
forty-four men on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns during a
recent five-month period, the director of the FBI began to reexamine the
existing law and asked some U.S. senators to consider amendments. The
response of top officials in the NRA was to criticize the watch lists – not
the terrorists – and to announce support for legislation that
protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability if a buyer uses an
AK-47 in a terrorist attack. They also insist that background information
on gun buyers be discarded within twenty-four hours, precluding the
long-term retention of data that might reveal those who are plotting
against our nation’s security.
What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed
to kill people? According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, American children are sixteen times more likely than children
in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun, eleven times
more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to
die from firearms accidents.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research reports that the rate
of firearm homicide in the United States is nineteen times higher than
that of 35 other high-income countries combined. In the most recent year
for which data are available, handguns killed 334 people in Australia, 197
in Great Britain, 183 in Sweden, 83 in Japan, 54 in Ireland, 1,034 in
Canada, and 30,419 in the United States. The National Rifle Association,
the firearms industry, and compliant politicians should reassess their
policies concerning safety and accountability.
When asked if they personally believe it is acceptable for gays and
lesbians to engage in same-sex behavior, a majority of Americans respond
affirmatively, which is a strong shift in opinion since twenty years ago,
when responses to the same question were the reverse. There is some
indication that this change of public opinion has had an impact among
state and federal judges.
The views of Americans have also been changing regarding the death
penalty, with support for “life without parole” now at about half and only
one-third believing that the death penalty deters crime. In a nationwide
poll, only 1 percent of police chiefs thought that expanding the death
penalty would reduce crime. This change in public opinion also seems to be
having an effect, both in state legislatures and in the federal courts.
These figures paint an overall picture of the beliefs of American
citizens, surprisingly unchanged during the past five years. However,
revolutionary changes have taken place in our government’s domestic and
foreign policies, affecting the definition and protection of “moral
values.”
As an American who has been deeply involved in the political life of our
country, I find these statistics to be very interesting. As with almost
all other citizens, however, my private life has been the major factor in
shaping my own opinions and my personal reactions to the collective views
of others.
(Continues…)
Simon & Schuster
Copyright © 2005
Jimmy Carter
All right reserved.
ISBN: 0-7432-8457-7
Excerpted from Our Endangered Values
by Jimmy Carter
Copyright © 2005 by Jimmy Carter.
Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
