The Values-Vote Myth

[livius drusus]

The title comes from this NYT op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp)* by David Brooks which I very much appreciated for its cool-headed analysis and for dispelling my own assumptions about the electorate and its motivations.

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.

*Thanks to MrDarwin for posting it (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1953754#post1953754) at IIDB in the midst of a crappy blame gay activists for losing the election thread.

[Socratoad]

To each his own ....I guess. But frankly that analysis boggles my mind.

[livius drusus]

Do you question its accuracy, Toad?

[Socratoad]

Liv, I do not so much question its accuracy ..... as far as it goes. But in my less than humble opinion its not much more accurate than those who hold the opinion that the anti-gay thing is what it was all about.

In short: methinks that in an effort to appear to be above the fray the guy also has fallen into the trap of over-simplification.

Incidentally he is an analyst whom I respect, but in this case I think he falls far short of the mark.

[HelenM]

I think the bottom line is "Kerry was a less appealing candidate than Bush". That quote does undermine the idea that the same-sex marriage question brought out a significant number of "moral values" voters whose votes then changed the outcome of the election.

However, in general, I don't think it demonstrates that the "moral values" vote was insignificant. I've heard that many people in exit polls did say that "moral values" was the no. 1 or no. 2 issue for them. That was probably true for these people four years ago also; the difference seems to be that the opinion polls didn't specifically ask how important "moral values" were to voters at the last election or during most of the run-up to this one.

I heard on public radio that the press gave disproportionately high coverage in the last several months to gay marriage, which to me makes it all the more surprising they didn't ask more questions about how the issue would affect voters.

I've witnessed conservative Christians urging Christians to consider "moral values" in every election held since I moved to the US (in 1986). It's clear to me that there are many voters whose vote is based primarily based on "moral values" considerations. I agree with David Brooks that Bush's support is broad-based. But I'm not ready to say that the "moral values" vote was insignificant just because of lack of change since the last election. I'd need more statistics before I could conclude that.

Helen

[Socratoad]

Its precisely because of my perceptions of moral values that I could never vote for Bush or any other neo-con. Voting for some Republican values before this nasty bunch made their unholy alliance with the fundies and hi-jacked that party just might have given me something to consider. As I said earlier I look at the whole package, and its morally/ethically irresponsible to vote for any of this cabal of dangerous jackasses.

I'm sorry if any of you feel otherwise. If you see any redeeming factors in this bunch of morally stunted cretins please feel free to point them out.

[Cool Hand]

Great post, Liv, and a very thoughtful op-ed piece you linked to. I hope that many liberals who are feeling morally smug right now get a chance to read it. (Jeebus, watch how that remark gets twisted into my calling all liberals "morally smug." For Bart's sake, I'm liberal on most social issues. I'm sick of angry, knee-jerk reactive posts here, frankly. Too often responsive posts are made without the poster actually reading what the other guy wrote. Sorry for the mini-rant, Liv. I'm not directing it at you or any one particular poster, either.) I suspect that many will, given that it's in the New York Times.

(a great newspaper, BTW, but I agree that the overall quality of writing at the Wall Street Journal is likely the best of any in a national newspaper. For magazines, I prefer The Atlantic Monthly and The New Yorker.)

Cool Hand

[lisarea]

I have to admit that I was shocked at the results of those exit polls myself. Now, I have yet to actually see the wording of the questions or anything, but the idea of citing 'moral values' as a top criterion seems vague and somewhat emotional. And I think it's an interesting phenomenon. It's just one of those things that drives home the point that I honestly don't understand the motivations behind much of the popular support for Bush. The difference between the top issues cited by Bush vs. Kerry voters was marked, and it really can't be discounted.

But again, I'd really really like to see the original wording of the question and the raw data before jumping to conclusions.

And Cool Hand, please don't take this the wrong way, but what is this all about?

(Jeebus, watch how that remark gets twisted into my calling all liberals "morally smug." For Bart's sake, I'm liberal on most social issues. I'm sick of angry, knee-jerk reactive posts here, frankly. Too often responsive posts are made without the poster actually reading what the other guy wrote. Sorry for the mini-rant, Liv. I'm not directing it at you or any one particular poster, either.)

The only person who has said that here thus far is you. You've predicted a response and actually gotten angry and frustrated over despite the fact that it was just something you imagined. It didn't happen. If you expect you're going to be misinterpreted, just clear up the potential misunderstanding. Don't predict a hostile reaction, and then direct your hostility toward the fictionalized poster you imagined attacking you. If you honestly expect that you're going to be misunderstood, why not just express yourself more clearly in the first place and note that you're not calling all liberals 'morally smug'?

[LadyXoc]

I don't know any Kerry supporters, liberal or otherwise, who are morally smug, fwiw. And I'm not liberal. I'm ornery. But then, I'm not smug. I'm greiving.

That's an interesting article. I would like to point out, however, that if the Moral Majority part of the voting public didn't deliver a fair share of votes, the neocons would not have put any effort into courting them. I think they realize that no one segment is going to deliver sufficient market share to land them in the White House. But I question how many voters really understand policy issues, given that Bush's record is pretty damn pathetic in that regard. Also, some people are going to vote based on financial issues, because they feel Bush "is good for the market." That may be nothing more than, "I'm doing ok, so to hell with everything else" rather than a well-considered assessment of his overall performance as a President.

I agree that it is not merely a simple "Bush is a church-going guy" campaign, but I think it is rather a combination of carefully thought-out tactics guaranteed to deliver the maximum amount of votes. I think the values message is part of that, along with a certain amount of class warfare for certain segments of the voting public. The "liberal elite" image is a fucking brilliant marketing tactic for people out in Bumfuck whose jobs have disappeared and are angry and anxious. It deflects notice away from the elite who happen to be Bush supporters and who will benefit the most from his fiscal "policy." And this kind of strategy is something the Democratic party has, frankly, fucking sucked ass at for the last few elections. Which is fucking inexcusable, because, especially in this election, they had countless valid issues to address in their campaign, and I personally feel they often did not hit nearly hard enough. They have acquired a reputation for being weak, diffident, and out of touch with middle or working class America. How the hell did this happen?

[livius drusus]

Liv, I do not so much question its accuracy ..... as far as it goes. But in my less than humble opinion its not much more accurate than those who hold the opinion that the anti-gay thing is what it was all about.

Well, so far I have yet to see any poll and election return data, or even chronological consistency, really, to support the latter argument whereas I have seen convincing data poll and election data (see Brooks' op-ed), and the actual timeline of gay marriage as a legal and political issue seems to me to entirely strip the argument of validity (see all of MrDarwin's post in the linked IIDB thread).

In short: methinks that in an effort to appear to be above the fray the guy also has fallen into the trap of over-simplification.

I don't know about Brooks' motivations for his approach to the data, but I don't disagree that he handles some aspects, particularly his handwave over the meaning of "moral values" responses, in a cursory manner. Most of the conclusions he suggests, however, are imo well-supported by the statistics he presents.

Incidentally he is an analyst whom I respect, but in this case I think he falls far short of the mark.

Fair enough. :)

[Socratoad]

In order to try and inject a small iota of levity in here regarding the OP.

The are lies, damned lies. and then there are statistics.

Example: statistically I can show that a person with one foot in a pail of flaming gasoline and the other foot in a pail of chipped ice is on the whole quite comfortable.

[livius drusus]

However, in general, I don't think it demonstrates that the "moral values" vote was insignificant. I've heard that many people in exit polls did say that "moral values" was the no. 1 or no. 2 issue for them. That was probably true for these people four years ago also; the difference seems to be that the opinion polls didn't specifically ask how important "moral values" were to voters at the last election or during most of the run-up to this one.

That's an excellent point. I have no recollection of what kinds of questions were asked in 2000. I'll look around and post again.

I heard on public radio that the press gave disproportionately high coverage in the last several months to gay marriage, which to me makes it all the more surprising they didn't ask more questions about how the issue would affect voters.

I can't say I got that impression, but then again, I'm not exactly Miss Mainstream Media either. I wonder if Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney during the 3rd debate was counted as gay marriage coverage.

I agree with David Brooks that Bush's support is broad-based. But I'm not ready to say that the "moral values" vote was insignificant just because of lack of change since the last election. I'd need more statistics before I could conclude that.

That's a really good point I hadn't thought of, Helen. Thank you.

[livius drusus]

Great post, Liv, and a very thoughtful op-ed piece you linked to. I hope that many liberals who are feeling morally smug right now get a chance to read it.

I'd be happy if the people on the thread it was originally posted in at IIDB read it. ;)

(<snip mini-rant> Sorry for the mini-rant, Liv. I'm not directing it at you or any one particular poster, either.)

Pshaw. Just a single mini among many maxis. Of course lisarea's still right about it, but I'm guessing you at least suspected as much.

(a great newspaper, BTW, but I agree that the overall quality of writing at the Wall Street Journal is likely the best of any in a national newspaper. For magazines, I prefer The Atlantic Monthly and The New Yorker.)

You know, I don't think I have a magazine writing preference. Honestly, it would probably Spy from the late 80s. It shimmered in those days.

[Socratoad]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29475-2004Nov5.html?sub=AR

Check this out. Methinks you will have to sign in to read it, but it casts a rather interesting perspective on the election outcome.

[viscousmemories]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

[Socratoad]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

Exactly

[livius drusus]

I have to admit that I was shocked at the results of those exit polls myself. Now, I have yet to actually see the wording of the questions or anything, but the idea of citing 'moral values' as a top criterion seems vague and somewhat emotional. And I think it's an interesting phenomenon. It's just one of those things that drives home the point that I honestly don't understand the motivations behind much of the popular support for Bush. The difference between the top issues cited by Bush vs. Kerry voters was marked, and it really can't be discounted.

Agreed on all points.

But again, I'd really really like to see the original wording of the question and the raw data before jumping to conclusions.

I'm going to go poll-hunting this afternoon and see what I find.

[Corwin]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

Because Bush got elected and 11 states passed gay marriage bans.

[livius drusus]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

Exactly

That was one of Brooks' points:

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.

I agree with Helen, though, that this doesn't really explore what people who chose that option meant.

[Socratoad]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

Because Bush got elected and 11 states passed gay marriage bans.

Corwin, is one of us misreading what vm is referring to above? According to my understanding of morals the fundies and neo-cons are definitely immoral.

[Cool Hand]

And Cool Hand, please don't take this the wrong way, but what is this all about?

(Jeebus, watch how that remark gets twisted into my calling all liberals "morally smug." For Bart's sake, I'm liberal on most social issues. I'm sick of angry, knee-jerk reactive posts here, frankly. Too often responsive posts are made without the poster actually reading what the other guy wrote. Sorry for the mini-rant, Liv. I'm not directing it at you or any one particular poster, either.)

The only person who has said that here thus far is you. You've predicted a response and actually gotten angry and frustrated over despite the fact that it was just something you imagined. It didn't happen. If you expect you're going to be misinterpreted, just clear up the potential misunderstanding. Don't predict a hostile reaction, and then direct your hostility toward the fictionalized poster you imagined attacking you. If you honestly expect that you're going to be misunderstood, why not just express yourself more clearly in the first place and note that you're not calling all liberals 'morally smug'?

Good question, Lisa. It's mostly my own feeling that I'm having to walk on eggshells when I post about politics on this board. Call me paranoid if you like, but at least VM agrees that my feeling that way is not entirely baseless. I've been misunderstood several times on this board simply because I didn't go into a long explanation of what I meant.

(You realize, I suppose, that my mini-rant is related to my OP in the "Us v. Them" thread I made. You don't have to know the history of my recent interactions with other posters to understand the sentiment behind it. Demanding that I give specific examples is missing the point. VM's remarks in that thread do a good job of explaining and clarifying my remarks there. I'm sorry you took offense.)

I'm not predicting anything. I'm trying to pre-empt. I could have pre-empted misunderstanding by going into a defensive explanation that I don't mean all liberals when I say "smug liberals." I often do that, but sometimes I grow weary of it, and this time I was weary. Also, it is unnecessary. "Smug" in this context is an adjective qualifying the noun "liberals." It does not follow that all liberals are smug. I shouldn't have to explain for clarity. It's clear enough already.

My mini-rant is itself a commentary that too often readers aren't careful enough to note that logical inferences they draw from the use of adjectives, for one example, are not necessarily implied or reasonable. I'm frustrated that anyone, including myself, should have to explain that notion repeatedly. That's all.

OK, sorry for the derailment, Liv.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Because Bush got elected and 11 states passed gay marriage bans.

So you therefore argue backwards that the election was determined by people voting solely for the religious moral values? That's a methodology so poor it can barely be considered one. What evidence can you provide to support what seems to be your implicit claim that Bush was elected and gay marriage bans passed because of the fundamentalist vote?

[lisarea]

Maybe I'm missing something in the language here, but if I had been able to vote and I was asked what part "moral values" played in my selections, I would have said "all of it". Why else would I vote if not to endorse those people who uphold my moral values? Why do some seem to be assuming that the question refers to religious moral values?

From what little I've been able to glean about the exit polls, people were asked what their top criteria were when deciding who to vote for. They were apparently given a list, which I have not seen, and the results showed that, of the options provided, Bush voters chose "moral values" by a very large margin, with "terrorism" second. Kerry voters chose "the economy," "health care," and "Iraq," but I don't remember the order.

So, it's my impression that they weren't asked IF those specific issues mattered to them, but that they were asked to rank them in order of importance.

But then again, who knows? The stories I've seen thus far are pretty vague, and I never entirely trust statistics of any sort until I've seen the raw data.

[livius drusus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29475-2004Nov5.html?sub=AR

Check this out. Methinks you will have to sign in to read it, but it casts a rather interesting perspective on the election outcome.

Very interesting article, Toad. Thank you for posting it. I wonder where he gets his figures about conservatives outnumbering liberals by 34% to 21%? I agree that there are demographic dangers to "letting any election be polarized on conservative or liberal grounds," but I'd like to see what he's basing those percentages on before I accept that those dangers apply solely to liberals.

So while liberals and conservatives can be motivated and brought to the polls in increasing numbers, the real battle at the end of the day is for the more moderate voters who this year slipped away to the Republicans, on the basis not of gun control and gay marriage but of security and secular values such as trust and standing up for your beliefs. They are the core of any winning national coalition and at the heart of our national values. These voters have chosen Democrats in the past, and as the Democratic Party rebuilds, they are the first and most important voters we must attract to win a majority in 2008 and beyond.

This conclusion seems to me to suffer from a rather common post-election malaise known as Appealtothemoderatevoter Syndrome, which usually translates into Democrats sounding more and more like Republicans. ;) Generally speaking, I would say that examining our common concerns and values is a far broader task than focusing on the demographics du jour allows.

[lisarea]

I'm not predicting anything. I'm trying to pre-empt. I could have pre-empted misunderstanding by going into a defensive explanation that I don't mean all liberals when I say "smug liberals." I often do that, but sometimes I grow weary of it, and this time I was weary. Also, it is unnecessary. "Smug" in this context is an adjective qualifying the noun "liberals." It does not follow that all liberals are smug. I shouldn't have to explain for clarity. It's clear enough already.

Cool, then.

And FWIW, I know exactly what you're reacting to. As I said, it happens to me, too. But I would suggest just preempting the misunderstanding by making sure that you've made it very clear what you're saying. You can do this through emphasis, repetition, or just very careful wording.

There are any number of subjects that I know, from prior experience, that people tend to misinterpret my positions on. But rather than getting angry about the misinterpretations proactively or anything, I make a point to address them very carefully and very very clearly, in order to reduce the chance of misunderstanding. You know, to overcome noise, increase volume and/or redundancy.

I'm just saying that you're seeming a little paranoid about it, and that a simple disclaimer that "smug liberals" was not one big smug laid over the Venn diagram "liberals," but a subset, would have been a more appropriate way of addressing the potential misunderstanding.


My mini-rant is itself a commentary that too often readers aren't careful enough to note that logical inferences they draw from the use of adjectives, for one example, are not necessarily implied or reasonable. I'm frustrated that anyone, including myself, should have to explain that notion repeatedly. That's all.

I think this is kind of an important derail, and something that needs to be addressed. If you just throw out something like 'smug liberals,' you are being ambiguous as to whether you mean 'smug' in the universal or the existential sense. That is, you are being unclear as to whether 'smug' is simply a descriptor of 'liberals' in general, or whether it's meant to narrow the field to that subset of liberals who are smug.

In other words, it is you who is being ambiguous in the first place. While it may be unfair for readers to assume one interpretation over the others, it's primarily your responsibility to be clear in the first place.

[Cool Hand]

I think this is kind of an important derail, and something that needs to be addressed. If you just throw out something like 'smug liberals,' you are being ambiguous as to whether you mean 'smug' in the universal or the existential sense. That is, you are being unclear as to whether 'smug' is simply a descriptor of 'liberals' in general, or whether it's meant to narrow the field to that subset of liberals who are smug.

In other words, it is you who is being ambiguous in the first place. While it may be unfair for readers to assume one interpretation over the others, it's primarily your responsibility to be clear in the first place.

OK, but this is what I actually wrote above.

"I hope that many liberals who are feeling morally smug right now get a chance to read it."

Isn't that clear enough? I didn't write "smug liberals." I have seen readers twist my construction around (not that particular sentence, mind you) to mean precisely what I feared. I think it's unnecessarily cumbersome and artless to have to qualify one's meaning at each turn, especially when it is already evident in context. The very reasons I did so here are because so many posters seem to be on edge, and because some tend to get angry when they see someone they perceive as not being a self-identifying member using a term like "liberal" that is sometimes used pejoratively. Coupling "liberal" with "smug" seemed like a stick of dynamite to me. Even so, my usage in the sentence above was apt in this context, and I felt it to be clear enough for level-headed readers. Unfortunately, my impression is that not everyone is quite level-headed at the moment. Hence, my defensiveness.

Enough already. We're making a bigger deal of this than it merits.

Cool Hand

[Socratoad]

Did anybody get laid lately, if not, why not? Just kidding. I feel the need to wind down. Not forget the objective, but just wind down before I combust. I suspect that many here are as uptight, angry, disillusioned and suffering from recent events at least as much as I am. And so Cool Hand, although I bear you no ill-will and in fact normally enjoy all your posts I respectively believe that you were very unobservant of the present mood both here and many other places on the net. For surely you do not enjoy sticking your head into a hornet's nest. Or do you?

Please try to refrain from tossing the term "liberal" around so damned freely. It is a label that certainly does not apply to me, especially coupled with the word "smug"

If this board is to so value freethought that one becomes afraid of being being labelled as just one of the pack when one is actually just posting to the best of one's ability and speaking to the values one holds then I shall be left relatively speechless except when posting in non-controversial threads.

As others have said, no one likes to be accused of not having a mind of their own just because on certain subjects they happen to be part of the majority.

And I'll be damned if I will play devils advocate. Others may choose to do so, and that is OK with me, just as long as they proclaim so at the beginning of any debate. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and just a form of game-playing IMHO

[livius drusus]

Sigh... Cool Hand said he hopes any liberals who are feeling smug read the article. The papers and blogs are full of liberals feeling smug. Why would you assume he was talking about anyone on this board, nevermind you?

Oh and could we move on, please? I am sick to death of threads turning into disquisitions on one person.

[Socratoad]

Sigh... Cool Hand said he hopes any liberals who are feeling smug read the article. The papers and blogs are full of liberals feeling smug. Why would you assume he was talking about anyone on this board, nevermind you?

Oh and could we move on, please? I am sick to death of threads turning into disquisitions on one person.

Yoo hoo Liv :wave: :five: :vibes:

OK lets all get back to real conversation :handshake:

[livius drusus]

:qok:
:chinch:

[lisarea]

Here's the poll. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/)

Looks as though they were asked to cite a single most important factor, and Bush voters cited "Terrorism" first, then "Moral Values."

[livius drusus]

I'm only halfway down and it's already pretty amazing reading. Thanks for posting the link, lisa.

[Corwin]

Because Bush got elected and 11 states passed gay marriage bans.

So you therefore argue backwards that the election was determined by people voting solely for the religious moral values? That's a methodology so poor it can barely be considered one. What evidence can you provide to support what seems to be your implicit claim that Bush was elected and gay marriage bans passed because of the fundamentalist vote?

It's not backwards arguing at all.... Hell Rove has openly admitted that the gay marriage issue was brought up to bring out religious conservatives to the polls.

[livius drusus]

Sure, but it doesn't follow from that they drew a significant number, nevermind enough to ensure reelection. Do you have any evidence of the numbers in question?

[viscousmemories]

Besides, as mentioned in the OP this thread is about:

Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

[HelenM]

However, in general, I don't think it demonstrates that the "moral values" vote was insignificant. I've heard that many people in exit polls did say that "moral values" was the no. 1 or no. 2 issue for them. That was probably true for these people four years ago also; the difference seems to be that the opinion polls didn't specifically ask how important "moral values" were to voters at the last election or during most of the run-up to this one.

That's an excellent point. I have no recollection of what kinds of questions were asked in 2000. I'll look around and post again.

I heard a remark on public radio that the polls for the 2000 election didn't specify "moral values". But that's the only comment I've heard about it. Please share what you find out.

I heard on public radio that the press gave disproportionately high coverage in the last several months to gay marriage, which to me makes it all the more surprising they didn't ask more questions about how the issue would affect voters.

I can't say I got that impression, but then again, I'm not exactly Miss Mainstream Media either. I wonder if Kerry's mentioning of Mary Cheney during the 3rd debate was counted as gay marriage coverage.

The comment about the press giving disproportionate coverage to gay marriage in recent months wasn't about election coverage per se. As an example they said how many articles the New York Times had had about gay marriage compared with some other important current news issue (I've forgotten which one). I heard this on a program a week or so before the election so it wasn't connected with the election outcome in any way.

I agree with David Brooks that Bush's support is broad-based. But I'm not ready to say that the "moral values" vote was insignificant just because of lack of change since the last election. I'd need more statistics before I could conclude that.

That's a really good point I hadn't thought of, Helen. Thank you.

You're welcome :)

Helen

[viscousmemories]

They NY Times has another good article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06beliefs.html
) on the "moral values" subject.

Fanaticism exists, of course, and stupidity, too. Wild claims and aggressive demands have been made in the name of moral values, often enough by figures competing for public attention. Latching upon these is an easy and tempting way to deaden the kind of empathy and imagination necessary to comprehend another perspective.

A condescending incredulity offers a slightly more sophisticated way to derail any inquiry into the moral values issues. Just treat one's own views as so established and self-evident that any questioning of them can only be a puzzling and pathological "backlash." Are there really still people out there opposed to abortion rights? How incomprehensible!

<snip>

The endgame should not be some expedient concession or cosmetic exercise to garner votes next time around. The endgame should be an honest discussion of the moral stances dividing Americans, each side (and there may be more than two) addressing the contending arguments at their best and not at their worst. It is not unthinkable that a few minds might be changed, and a great many people feel less alienated.

[Godless Wonder]

Isn't David Brooks basically a Bush apologist? Or am I just mistaking the role he plays on PBS where he gives the opposing viewpoint to Mark Sheilds every night for his real opinion?

Judged by his daily appearances on PBS for the last six months, he's a Bush apologist.

[wei yau]

Pinning the Kerry loss solely on gay marriage or even this nebulous "moral values" is meaningless. Just as Bush won based on a broad range of issues, Kerry lost on an equally broad range of issues.

While I do not agree that Bush makes me feel "safer" or that a Kerry presidency would endanger the country, I don't think it's fair to simply swap "gay marriage/moral values" with "security" and state that's the *reason* for the election results.

Bush won because more Americans approve of his policies than not. They are not deluded, stupid, fooled or bigots.

They know that Bush has presented inconsistent reasons and rationale for the Iraq invasion, but like Bush, it does not matter. What matters is establishing American primacy in the world, particulary the Middle East. Not out of some sense of imperialism, but out of the notion that doing so would engender freedom and democracy for the region and security for the Western world.

They voted for Bush because they believe tax cuts will best benefit the economy. They believe that a top-down approach is more effective than a bottom-up approach.

They voted for Bush because they share his religious convictions reflected in his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.

There are many other reasons and for his supporters, they are all valid and reasoned. It's not that I'm out of touch with them. I understand why they vote the way they do. I just don't agree with them.

[livius drusus]

Excellent post, Eldar. :appl:

[livius drusus]

Isn't David Brooks basically a Bush apologist? Or am I just mistaking the role he plays on PBS where he gives the opposing viewpoint to Mark Sheilds every night for his real opinion?

Judged by his daily appearances on PBS for the last six months, he's a Bush apologist.

That's an ad hominem, though. Even if he were Dick Cheney himself his data and conclusions might be accurate. If there's a weakness in his arguments or sources, some bias that distorts his interpretation, it should be exposed with reference to the material itself, not by labelling the writer.

[HelenM]

Excellent post, Eldar. :appl:

I agree. It is so refreshing to read the following rather than another rant against Bush voters:

There are many other reasons and for his supporters, they are all valid and reasoned. It's not that I'm out of touch with them. I understand why they vote the way they do. I just don't agree with them.

I understand them too. At least to some extent.

Helen