Posted on 11/08/2004 11:07:22 AM PST by epluribus unum1
.. 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
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
I simply assume the media and their so called intelligentia cohorts are insane.
That was in the NEW YORK TIMES?????
Seriously though. As a senior in college, I have to listen to many a person bemoan how they don't know who America is anymore or say they want to move to Canada. I vote we pay for their tickets.
Also, we must all work diligently in the coming months to convince “progressives” that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.
Begin with putting all known “progressives” in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.
Brooks, for once, makes a good point, but he sees the symptoms and not the underlying disease. One of the core tenets of liberalism is that things just aren't the fault of the individual and that no one needs to accept the consequences of their actions. Having espoused that for years politically, liberals now have come to believe that down to their core. And that prevents them from having to examine their beliefs to find the reasons for their political failures. Instead, it's all someone else's fault. Karl Rove. The Supreme Court. Those dumb rednecks. Those intolerant Christians.
The blame lies with anyone but them. And as long as they keep this up, the feedback cycle will continue and they will marginalize themselves further with each passing election.
the problem is h uberis. liberals think that they are right and the rest of us are ignorant and need to be educated - then we'ed be just like them. opinions that differ from theirs are simply wrong.
that's it in a nutshell.
People tend to group with likes. The larger the population, the more 'likes' find each other.
So those in the big cities are honestly more insulated and isolated than someone in a small town in Montana.
What is best in life? To crush the liberals, to drive their minions before you, and to hear the lamentations of Dan Rather!
"It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are"
That is a great quote to keep around. It says so much in one sentence.
Just like the NY Times to try to get to the other side to sell papers....still not buying it!
Ping!
Leftist and hard core liberals have been living in self created dillusional worlds for years, its not suprising that when once in a while the real world interjects itself into their fantasyland they can't understand it.
For years they have been on the wrong side of middle america, and they continue to think and lie and scream that they are middle america.
Your thread title is incorrect.
The Values-Vote Myth
Duplicity........is it ever wrong?
What you said!
We really are witnessing it as it happens.
Good article.
Unfortunately for the dems, their party has been hijacked by Michael Moore and the Hollywood left crowd. It's the height of lunacy to think that parading around with aging rock stars will somehow connect with middle America.
Zell Miller is right: A National Party No More
I have to wonder, though, is it better to let the democrat party keep splintering into these radical left factions. And we can keep attracting the sane people, slowing moving to the right the whole time.
bttt..Thanks!
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.