The Values-Vote Myth

NY Times ^ | November 6, 2004 | DAVID BROOKS

[SE Mom]

Thank GOD for a voice of sanity- I never know what to expect from Brooks- but this sums it up nicely!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

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?

Dingdingdingdingding! And we have a WINNAH -- ! :)

[syriacus]

Good article. Thanks.

[txkev]

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?

[Magnolia]

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.

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.

[mlocher]

The rage of the drowning man.

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...

[Salvation]

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".

[Sola Veritas]

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.

[Cicero]

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.

[qam1]

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

[radicalamericannationalist]

"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."

I agree. He and Safire have as much connection to middle America as Krugman or Kristoff.

BTW, has Tom Wolfe published anything on the election? Of the Manhattan elite, I think he comes the closest to understanding traditionalists.

[neverdem]

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.

[Dr Snide]

Its the same after every liberal defeat. It can never be about the fact that people are rejecting their ideas so they have to find another reason whether that be a poor candidate (Dukakis), telegenic opponent (Reagan), the election was stolen (Gore) and now the ignorant, homophobic, hate of the red state "value" voters. They never seem to realize that its their liberal ideology that is being rejected. Of course they have no problems seeing any conservative/Republican loss as a rejection of their ideas/philosophy. Either way let them continue to see things this way and we'll keep winning.

[Sam Cree]

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.

[mlocher]

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

[Doctor Stochastic]

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.

This is consistent with my observations.

[unsycophant]

.
.

If Kerry had won, would it be a clear victory for immorality?

[neverdem]

That should be people in BLUE America!

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.