The Values-Vote Myth

NY Times ^ | November 6, 2004 | DAVID BROOKS

[Strategerist]

You are right. Brooks says he went around the country trying to learn about us. This article shows me that he learned absolutely nothing. He doesn't have any idea how a social conservative thinks. Everything that he postulates starting with the first sentence is a load of hot air.

I never cease to be amazed at the inability of people at times to understand fairly simple articles if they aren't a very simply-constructed rant that they completely agree with.

[NYCVirago]

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.

Same here. And the difference between Republicans and Democrats who aren't particularly religious is that Repubs don't hold religious people in contempt the way the RATs do.

[sevry]

all this credit giving to the religious right

You can THANK all those people of faith, whom you derisively call the 'religious right', for putting the President back in office.

[sevry]

Good article.

Not necessarily, unless you're looking for someone to validate that opinion, regardless of the fact.

[garandgal]

Here's my summation of the election; note the brevity:

American voters reject becoming Europe.

[garandgal]

Oh wait; I improved it:

American voters side with ancestors; reject becoming Europe.

[sevry]

Brooks and Bill Safire, who was a Nixon speechwriter, are the Times' two token conservatives

Brooks isn't always wrong. But he's often wrong. Remember, this is the guy Lehrer and Shields actually feel comfortable facing as a conservative. He's ALWAYS nervous on the program. That tells you something.

[lainde]

Great article...thanks for posting!

[cajun scpo]

I wasn't polled, but you could say my vote for President Bush was about 'moral values'. I think it is immoral to call the president a Nazi for fighting the war on terror.

More seriously, my vote was not about gay marriage or homophobia. But part of it was about Federal Judges. I don't think any judge should be able to rule that a bride can be a male or a bridegroom can be a female. Does not compute with the definition in my old print Websters Dictionary. But that just added to my view tat Bush would is a far superrior Commander in Chief and in polls of the troops. I could not fathom Kerry as CIC. Support the troops, vote for the CIC they believe best serves them. I'm retired Navy and my sisters son is assigned to 'A' Co. 1/75 Ranger Rgt. Hunter AAF, GA. Just no way.

Some stats to back up Brooks.

11 states with gay marriage initiative.

2000 [Bush 10.34M votes] [Gore 8.83M votes] [Bush 52.22%, Gore 44.61%, Other 3.17%]
2004 [Bush 12.49M votes] [Kerry 10.27M votes] [Bush 54.46%, Kerry 44.77%, Other 0.77%]

2000 Electoral College: Bush 76, Gore 25
2004 Electoral College: Bush 77, Kerry 24 [MICH lost one EV]

39 states and DC without

2000 [Bush 40.12M votes] [Gore 42.17M votes] [Bush 46.95%, Gore 49.35%, Other 3.70%]
2004 [Bush 46.95M votes] [Kerry 45.65M votes] [Bush 50.22%, Kerry 48.83%, Other 0.96%]

2000 Electoral College: Bush 195, Gore 242
2004 Electoral College: Bush 209, Kerry 228

A few more bits.

1. My stats show 63.9% turnout based on 2000 census [18+ year old citizens] in the 11 states.
1a. My stats show 62.1% turnout in the 39 states and DC.

2. Bush percent of votes increased 20.8% from 2000 in the 11 states.
2a. Kerry percent of votes increased 16.2% from 2000 in the 11 states.

3. Bush percent of votes increased 17.0% from 2000 in the other 39 plus DC.
3a. Kerry percent of votes increased only 8.3% from 2000 in the other 39 plus DC.

You could almost make the argument the initiative helped bring democrats out as much as republicans. Twice the increase in initiative states for democrats. And Bush picked up 14 electoral votes in non initiative states because of 2000 census, picking up New Mexico & Iowa even with losing New Hampshire.

[Clemenza]

David Brooks is happily married with children.

[syriacus]

Bush is a good man and Kerry's a jerk, it's kind of hard to get by that

I agree.

[syriacus]

Not necessarily, unless you're looking for someone to validate that opinion, regardless of the fact.

My opinions ---

• There were many good reasons to vote for Bush, and no good reasons to vote for Kerry.
• It's too early to really know what all the Bush voters thought, other than that they felt Bush should stay in office.
• The word "values" may be a narrower term to a liberal pollster than it is to a conservative voter. I'm not willing to accept the liberal narrowness of definition, painting conservative values as revolving only around the issues of sex and abortion.
• Polls are similar to snapshots. Snapshots are pretty but they are only two dimensional and they are not reality.

Among other things I agree with Brooks on this

... if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry.

What is your opinion of the column?

[Sam Cree]

"Do you feel that your vote was a mandate for him to "drive on?"

Yes, the one thing that Bush sees clearly is that Islamic terrorism must end, or our cities, civilization and families will always be threatened with destruction. He risked his presidency on this conviction.

Now he needs to go ahead and get all of Iraq under control.

I also, of course, consider my vote for Bush to be a vote against the continued effort by the Dems and others to move America steadily leftwards.

[Quix]

Great find.

Good post.

Sent to my email list.

Thanks.

[Quix]

I don't know about mischeaviousness.

I do think it lacks comprehensiveness.

I still think it's basically a good article. AT least it has some reason the liberal idiots might wrap their failing brains around.

[sevry]

I'm not willing to accept the liberal narrowness of definition, painting conservative values as revolving only around the issues of sex and abortion.

Conservatives wouldn't mind, however. And libs are increasingly uncomfortable with this. So Kohut was on tv two days later insisting this was a non-issue. It was picked up by Brooks of the same program, and others.

Moral issues conservatives are not going away. They haven't. And they played a key role in this very election.

[rwfromkansas]

You could not see how thick he was laying on the sarcasm there? Geez....his article is CRITICIZNG that myth.

[NZerFromHK]

I'm an evangelical Christian but I have to agree with Brooks when confranted with facts. The proportional of evangelcial Christian vote is steady from 2000 but support from atheists or nominal "Christians" (who are conservative on economic issues, terrorism and foreign policy) rose by 9%.

There are plenty of poeple that I know are avowed atheists and even support gay marriage but they opt Bush (Steven den Beste is one example, most big-name conervative bloggers are other examples) because of his stance on WOT.