■"'Terrorism Worries, Not 'Moral Values,' Decided Election," by John Harwood, wall Street Journal, 24 November 2004, p. A4.

Harwood makes the best case possible for the notion that moral values mattered little in the election, and that it all came down to terrorism. His point: the Republicans get back above 50% in a national election for the first time in 16 years because weíre back to having security atop the agendaópure and simple.

I donít think you can argue with that analysis. I just also think itís incomplete. Terrorism the physical danger is rather minor in the U.S. Yes, 9/11 was horrible, but itís likely to be a very rare historical event. Whatís coming under attack every day in the Global War on Terrorism are our values. Not so much our political values (which most still admire), nor our economic values (which most still emulate). Instead, itís our moral values that attract the most hatred.

I know, I know, if we only pulled out militarily from the Middle East and gave up supporting Israel, then everything would be great in the region, except it would still be full of dysfunctional governments, backward social structures, and populations ill-prepared andóin many ways, unwillingóto succeed in a globalized world.

Now you might be wondering: if itís our ìlooseî moral values that offends so much, how come a resurgence of traditional values comes about in this war? This is classic mirror-imaging to a certain extent. We did the same in the early years of the Cold War, becoming reflexively far more conformist as a society in the face of the ìred threat.î Weíre doing something similar today.

So to say it was all about terrorism far more than moral values is awfully misleading. The war is all about values, and the American public wants someone at the top who will defend those values while demonstrating them as much as possible. The two points, then, are intimately linked.

This is what the Democrats better figure out if they hope to rule in the White House anytime soon.