The favored candidate, usually a Republican, is on the left. The issues are apparently chosen on the basis of polling data in each state and phrased in a way that skillfully frames the issue to make the conservative candidate appear to be the anointed choice of all true Christians. There is no room for subtlety here. Some questions contain the answer, such as "Appointing judges that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution," an intellectual position that has no basis in law or history and is code for appointing right-wing judges. Others have no simple answers.

Here's a senatorial voter guide for California:

Note the different list of issues. The table contains a footnote that the position of candidates are ascertained from their votes and public statements. Again, many of the questions cry out for reasoned analysis, such as the first issue, whether to raise taxes. The Federal deficit and the negative balance of international payments are issue of immense concern and simple answers like "no new taxes" are not answers at all but mindless political slogans. Sometimes taxes must be raised and while reasonable persons may differ on the amount and the timing, an automatic opposition to any increase in the tax rate is either idiotic or extremely cynical.

The issue of voluntary prayer is not about voluntary prayer at all; it is impossible to keep kids in school from praying. I recall that in my high school there was often fervent prayer just before final exams. Likewise, there is no way to prevent people from praying in public facilities. What the Christian Coalition actually wants is voluntary prayer for the fundamentalist Christians with the rest of the class being involuntarily forced to participate.

There there is the Gordian sentence, "Holding criminals liable for harm they cause to unborn children." It appears to penalize only criminals who harm unborn children. A person convicted of burglary, for instance, would be liable for selling liquor to a pregnant woman but a non-criminal bartender gets a free pass. What about doctors that perform abortions? And what kind of liability? Civil damages? Criminal liability?

The ineptitude of the drafters, however, is not why the issue is phrased so sloppily from a logical viewpoint. It is enough from their standpoint that "criminal," "harm," and "unborn children" occur together in the same sentence to trigger the message that abortionists are criminals, or ought to be.

"Further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms" conflicts with the bilge about strict interpretation of the Constitution. If judges strictly interpreted the Constitution, the people could only bear muskets and flintlock pistols, since that is all the drafters knew.

Deconstructing the remaining issues is a similar process. All of them are reductions of difficult and complicated question into memes for the simple-minded or the willfully stupid.

Tags: Christian Coalition, rightwing, abortion, judges, conservative, taxes