Remember when it was the economy, stupid? While that less than Solomonic proverb was never entirely accurate, we face a most unusual election season in which the economy has almost disappeared as an issue. The most important fact you will not hear this month touches the economy: Fulfilling a 2004 George W. Bush campaign promise, the federal deficit has fallen by half, from a projected $521 billion down to $248 billion as of September - and this more than two years ahead of the president's anticipated timetable.

How could so remarkable a feat go unheralded? What has happened to push the economy so far off the campaign agenda? Well, it turns out that matters of morality and security can be more important to voters than the economy.

Obviously since 9/11, security has taken on new significance as a national priority. But Americans seem to be of two minds when it comes to the Bush administration and the Republic Party in general. On the one hand many have misgivings about the war in Iraq and whether it actually makes us more or less secure. On the other hand, many doubt that the Democratic Party, with its emphasis on protecting enemy combatants' rights and its outright rejection of unilateral action, is capable of guaranteeing security.

The result has been an almost even split of the American electorate leaning ever so slightly in favor of the GOP. That is, until now. Even with the difficulties in Iraq and the usual expectation of losses in a midterm election, as recently as mid-September informed observers were expecting the Republicans to hold one or both houses of Congress. Those expectations changed in an instant, however, with the Mark Foley scandal. What mounting war casualties, intelligence leaks, and Bob Woodward could not accomplish together, Foley did alone - that is, jeopardize GOP control of Congress.

How informative that the Republican majority is most gravely threatened not because it was perceived to have mishandled the economy or national security, but because of a moral issue. Americans, it would seem, are more disturbed by the thought of a powerful congressman sending explicit homoerotic messages to a teenage boy than by the evolving terrorism threat or rising interest rates.

When the paramount matters of security and morality are more or less in hand - as in 1992 perhaps? - political candidates are free to spar over rising inflation, falling unemployment, or growing Gross Domestic Product. But when serious threats to our sense of security or moral stability emerge, priorities shift. Woe to the candidate who trots out the latest figures from the Labor Department or the Congressional Budget Office at a time when Americans are feeling moral outrage.

The Foley scandal generated just such a sense of moral outrage. The political fallout from his misconduct will be clear soon enough, and like many other ethical scandals, it may take down or seriously injure more than just the guilty until the public outrage has run its course.

One thing is certain. In 2006, it's not the economy. It's morality, stupid.

About the Author:
Robert D. Stacey is an associate professor in the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Contact him at rstacey@regent.edu.