Replies

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.

"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.

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.

Fine. I'm happy that the Dems have learned nothing from this election. The Hispanic cultural conservative movement to the GOP will continue as long as the Dems remain a Godless party. Eventually, this will doom the Dems to permanent irrelevance.

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.

Dear friend, you have mistaken Brooks entirely. He is not suggesting that "throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top." On the contrary, he is saying that this explanation, while it is the official account among pundits, is wrong. He agrees with you that Bush's victory has far more complex causes than this simplistic liberal explanation.

His article is a very restrained counterpoint to Gary Wills's ugly diatribe today, which condemns middle America as brainless bigots. As Brooks notes in his first paragraph, it is the explanation with which loser liberals comfort themselves in their loss.

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.