The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Values-Vote Myth.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: The Values-Vote
Myth .. nails down the inanity of the simplification of the values
issue .. takes the commentariat to task .. The Times When It's Right:
.. David Brooks .. good column .. truenytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html
track this site | 4 links [blogdex - the weblog diffusion index]
Since I think this opinion piece from the NYT does an excellent job of
explaining and putting into context the Bush-Rove election
success, and refuting the over-emotional, superficial ranting and
raving of the losers, I will quote it in full, since the NYT restricts
access to their archive:
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS
very election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line
to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features.
First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure
liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated
them.
In past years, the story line has involved Angry White
Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story
is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the
polls to put George Bush over the top.
This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.
Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points
out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this
year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year
as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters
who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be
illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage
of voters who say they pray daily.
It's true that Bush did get a
few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll
nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on
gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities
oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the
voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil
unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most
social issues.
Much of the misinterpretation of this election
derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked
about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the
option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or
nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept
question, you get a misleading result.
The reality is that this
was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than
he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York,
Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible
Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11
states with gay marriage referendums.
He won because 53
percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight
percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal
confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of
the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on
terror.
The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you
probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably
voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in
voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether
they are religious or not.
The red and blue maps that have been
popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but
they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years
traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to
understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one
explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week,
that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro
forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of
dogma and reaction.
In the first place, there is an immense
diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the
values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith,
leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart,
decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois
virtues and a zillion other issues.
But the same insularity that
caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now
causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who
voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing
elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals
talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It
makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely
closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?
What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition
gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social
issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole
story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came
across recently: The rage of the drowning man.
1:02:59 AM 
|
