Posted on 11/05/2004 8:30:26 PM PST by neverdem
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Every 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.
Thank GOD for a voice of sanity- I never know what to expect from Brooks- but this sums it up nicely!
Dingdingdingdingding! And we have a WINNAH -- ! :)
Good article. Thanks.
It's funny that you mention this... I had dinner tonight with a former member of the local Big 3 media and she was more upset with the fact that the ban on gay marriage had such a big role in this election than the fact Kerry lost. She actually had the nerve to call all of those people that felt the ban on gay marriage was their number one issue hypocrites. Hmmmmm, didn't she vote for the biggest hypocrite of them all?
Exactly! We forget that the liberals defined above INCLUDE the media. That's why we shouldn't expect anything other than what we've seen in headlines the past two days.
pretty much sums up the look of the democratic party right now. never read brooks before since i refuse to pay money for the nyt, but he seems to be a level headed liberal, though liberal nonetheless. i could write a rebuttal on my disagreements, but he realizes the problems with the democrats. hope nobody else does...
That should be people in BLUE America!
The colors were supposed to be switched this year but the lamestream media was too lazy or else wanted everyone to say "Red Republicans".
The New York Time actually printed an editorial that makes sense?
I am a conservative evangelical Christian, but I don't feel like it was my "ilk" that won the election for Bush - we just contributed. I think by far it was folks that agree with his WOT and its prosecution. I think the arguement that it was moral issues that drove the Bush vote is an exageration to try and diffuse the great mandate he has to finish successfully the WOT. Ridding the world of Islamic theocracies would be a great good, but I don't think the MSM approves for some reason.
I don't think this is a constructive editorial AT ALL.
Note that the title is "The Values-Vote Myth," and the crux of his argument is "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."
Nonsense. That is a bald-faced caricature of what values mean to Christians, religious Jews, and other sensible voters. We didn't vote for Bush because we are all raving homophobes. We voted for him because he supports the values we support: marriage, family, defence of our country, and the right to life.
That's a very different thing entirely.
Brooks, like Safire, simply doesn't understand what social conservatism means. Christians are not motivated by hatred, as the secularists constantly argue, but by love--love of God, country, family, and human rights--especially the endangered right to life.
On its face, this article looks good, but it's extremely mischievous.
Excellent article
I do believe all this credit giving to the religious right for Bush's big win by the Rats is a diversion/excuse to take away from the President his excellent job he's done in fighting the war on terror, Iraq and yes even the economy.
Plus I thought I heard on Rush (maybe Sean?) that in many of the exit polls where moral values was listed as a choice for "Why you voted for president" the war on terror and/or Iraq wasn't even an option
Brooks and Bill Safire, who was a Nixon speechwriter, are the Times' two token conservatives, neither of which are the fire breathing kind, but they're both smart.
I'm not particularly religious at all, but I figure lots of folks like me contributed, too.
Bush is a good man and Kerry's a jerk, it's kind of hard to get by that.
thanks for setting me straight on brooks. as i said, he seemed level headed, which should have automatically ruled out having me think of him as a liberal
This is consistent with my observations.
.
.
If Kerry had won, would it be a clear victory for immorality?
I agree, and Bush would do well to say that the pubbies want their colors back permanently. Let the red diaper doper babies have their red back forever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.