What's the matter with Massachusetts?

BEFORE THE election, a book title, "What's the Matter with Kansas?," was popular in some circles. With the results now in, we might want to ask the question "What's the matter with Massachusetts?"

ADVERTISEMENT

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision to legalize gay marriage prompted referendums in 11 states opposing gay marriage. All won. Those referendums also ensured that many Bush voters made sure to come to the polls. Whatever one's views on gay marriage, the idea that such an important decision could be imposed by judicial fiat struck many people, including myself, as fundamentally undemocratic.

In the same way, Roe v. Wade promoted not consensus, but rather galvanized opposition to abortion. Although I have been in favor of legalized abortion since seeing the results of criminal abortions in emergency rooms during my medical school days, the proponents of legalized abortion, impatient with the legislative process, failed to recognize that legislation legalizing abortion, achieved after a long struggle, would have been perceived as winning fairly and would have been more readily accepted.

Judicial legislation reflects disrespect for citizens' views and values. What's the matter with Massachusetts? It has a certain contempt for those with differing views.

This contempt was also expressed in the extremes of vilification and hatred expressed toward George W. Bush and his supporters. Teresa Heinz Kerry's use of words like "idiot" for opponents of her husband's policies does not convey respect. The frequent references to Bush as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc., by the Michael Moore faction of the Democratic Party, as well as numerous academics, went beyond contempt to hatred.

Such vicious passions led critics of Bush to embrace conspiracy theories (a habit that did not end on Election Day). Bush haters showed a willingness to accept uncritically negative reports about the president, such as the apparently fraudulent CBS documents, and the transparent attempt by the UN atomic energy commissioner to influence the US elections by dredging up a report about missing explosives in Iraq.

Perhaps Massachusetts academic institutions, for which the state is justly famous, should strengthen their teaching of civil discourse, impartiality, and objectivity. Even those of us who support Bush recognize that mistakes have been made, and problems remain. What is needed is intelligent and constructive criticism, not the casting of Bush as the source of all problems in the modern world.

Cheer up. The president needs a loyal, not a bitter and obstrusive, opposition. And there's another election in four years!

GLENN SWOGGER, Jr.
Topeka, Kan.