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
This is consistent with my observations.
Bump for later reading.
Explaining issues of faith and morality to liberals is like talking quantum physics with an chimpanzee, not worth the time and effort.
The left will never get it - it's becoming hillarious to watch their death rattles....
This hits the nail on the head.
"Moral values" were key in this election. But it is not correct to state that all those who shared this sentiment were conservative Christians. Many of the people who are concerned about the moral state of this country and its leaders are not devout Christians, or even Christians at all.
People who don't think morality should enter into the equation when choosing a candidate are prone to write off anyone who does. Thus, Brooks says it was just a bad question in the exit polls, since he can't correlate the results with an upsurge in Christian voters. The liberals say it was Bible-thumping rednecks, because then they don't have to think about it any further. But I think that there is a reawakening in this country, a realization that character and integrity matter, and that traditional views of what constitutes proper sexual conduct and discourse have merit.
John Kerry is not exactly a poster child for integrity. He tried to be all things to all people during his campaign. George Bush, on the other hand, is an honest man. Whether you like him or not, you know that he means what he says, and says what he means. If you were voting for integrity, the choice was very clear.
But I also agree that there were many factors which decided this election, and moral values was only one of those factors. We are all concerned about terrorism and national security. "W" wins on that issue as well.
What I have been trying to figure out is: Who are all these people who voted for Kerry? There are the labor unions (NEA, AFL-CIO, etc.), there are the standard minority blocs (shrinking for Democrats these days, though), there are the leftist nut cases (Michael Moore, Moveon.org), and I personally know a lot of people who immigrated from socialist countries and would prefer that we become socialists, too. (Which begs the question: Why don't they go back where they came from?) And there are of course some people who just see the world the way they want to see it and manage to ignore the realities of human nature. (That is, the soft, syrupy, all-you-need-is-love, why-can't-we-all-just-get-along, liberals.) But I still can't come up with 49%. I think that a lot of them in the blue counties must be just voting the way their parents voted.
American voters reject becoming Europe.
Great article...thanks for posting!