The Myth of the 'Values Voters'

Reason ^ | January 2007 | David Weigel

[neverdem]

That's the swing voters. But it's really made up of groups like soccer moms, who waffle back and forth between parties depending on whether they feel more scared of muslims or those scary Christians on election day or whether the issue de jour is the sacrament of abortion or state provided childcare or whatever. There are other swing groups but soccer moms are one of the biggies.

I'm inclined to think not. I think the soccer moms fall in the 47 % described as moderate. A lot of gun owners call themselves small 'l' libertarians. The dems tried their best to nullify that issue this year. Single issue Second Amendment types didn't have a reason in an off year election. The pubbies passed that Internet gambling ban attaching it to the Port Security bill, IIRC. Another reason for small 'l' libertarians to stay home. This is in comment# 112 from its link:

"Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.

"On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split."

The authors of those first three links in comment# 1 are David Boaz and David Kirby, John Derbyshire and Bruce Bartlett, respectively. I don't have any reason to doubt their scholarship for the 10 - 15 range.

[ModelBreaker]

I'm inclined to think not. I think the soccer moms fall in the 47 % described as moderate. A lot of gun owners call themselves small 'l' libertarians. The dems tried their best to nullify that issue this year. Single issue Second Amendment types didn't have a reason in an off year election. The pubbies passed that Internet gambling ban attaching it to the Port Security bill, IIRC. Another reason for small 'l' libertarians to stay home. This is in comment# 112 from its link:

The numbers in these polls don't help at all in figuring out who swung. In the 2004 presidential election, we won by 3 points. In the contested 2006 congressional races, we lost by 3 points. That's 1.75% of the voters changing their minds and voting the other way. So the fact that 47% of folks describe themselves as moderate tells you nothing about who swung.

I ran the county GOTV effort for a large swing county in a mountain state. So I talked with a lot of voters. And my phone bankers talked to a LOT of voters--like, 70-90,000.

I'm pretty sure that, at least in my neck of the woods, the profile of the vote switcher in 2006 was grumpy independents, who just wanted things to be different. They were pissed of about a variety of things--from Iraq to Christians to abortion to immigration to federal spending--but to call them libertarian is an insult to Frederick Hayek and Milton Friedman. Their idea of good governance is, when dems want a 20% tax increase, Republicans should agree to 10% and then the voters should never hear about it. Most especially, their position on, say, taxes is that politicians should not say mean things about each other on the tax issue and that they (the voters) ought not have hear about all this stuff because it annoys them. Their position on Iraq is that it annoys them they hear about it all the time and they want it (the annoyance) to go away. About as specific as it gets is "Someone ought to do something."

So, at least in the supposedly key county in a supposedly libertarian state, the 10-15% number is a pipe dream.

Look at it this way--and now I'm back to the national numbers. If 10-15% of the population were small government advocates (but not conservative christians) and another 35% are conservative christions, we would have a majority or near majority for smaller government on a wide range of issues. We aren't even close to that kind of vote for smaller government and we haven't beenn since 1980. 10-15% is pipe-dream land. The reason it is a fantasy rather than reality is that 10-15% of the population are not libertarians, if you exclude the Christians.

I SO wish you were right. Because if you were, we would be on the verge of restoring our constitutional republic. Regrettably, we are nowhere near that point. Instead we take out our frustration about the state of affairs by screaming at our closest political allies about details. The real problem is not the details. It is the fact that the majority of voters in America favor ever expanding and intrusive government.

[jammer]

I've also read that list, and it can generally be divided into three categories:

(1) "Accomplishments" that have absolutely no impact or were just lip service, but are read meat for the base, e.g., Kyoto, the Marriage Amendment, Social Security reform;

(2) "Accomplishments" that should be given no credit--why give credit and worship a president for doing some conservative things when he is elected by conservatives on a conservative platform? That's what he's SUPPOSED to do;

(3) "Accomplishments" that will accelerate the destruction of the conservative movement and that should shame him and the entire party. An abbreviated list includes CFR and Part D.

Number three is what is more than disgusting and what contributed mightily to the November electoral disaster. When one's supposedly good actions are accurately described that way, one hasn't been much of a president.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Allowing a judge to order the taking of a life without a jury of peers is hardly a libertarian ideal... or is it...

We have this Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party who thing the religious folks are as bad as the Taliban... screw them...

I am an atheist, but I'll take the religious conservative over the phony dopehead liberal-tarians any day...

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I agree with your points Cicero... but let me pose one or two to you.

Will socially conservatives give Rudy some consideration despite his "pro-choice" and "pro-gay rights" history GIVEN his support of staunch originalist justices like Roberts and Alito? I think Rudy will correctly say: these divisive issues should be decided at the state level and that's where the Supreme Court should put it and that's where the originalist justices who he supports would hopefully push such decisions. Roe was terrible "law" and it should be over-turned and returned to state jurisdiction. Same thing with many divisive legal issues.

I really hope conservatives (I consider myself one) rally around Rudy because on the most important issues (WOT, defense, economy, taxes, judges, education policies) I think he's the best prospect we have -- and he'll be the best communicator we've had since Reagan.

JMHO.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Social issues should be decided at the state level?

THAT IS WHY STATES RATIFY AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUION!

Lest anyone should use the federal courts to take the decisions of the states away... Now, if the liberal-tarians and RINOs would just get out of the way at the federal level and pass amendments on to the states, there would be no more issue...

I might be an atheist, but I'll take the social conservatives any day over the phony civil liberal-tarians... I am tired of this Rosie O'Donnell wing of the Republican party who can only throw crap at the Christians and equates them with the Taliban...

You want to win this war? Get somebody who has a track record of military victory, not another lawyer with a fancy Madison Avenue designer label... or I'll vote with my feet...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Accomplishments" that should be given no credit--why give credit and worship a president for doing some conservative things when he is elected by conservatives on a conservative platform? That's what he's SUPPOSED to do;"

That just exposed your personal agenda...don't give him credit for the things that he did do in order to criticize him on everything else.

I don't see the difference between you and a Democrat. IN fact, that was the exact tactic used to defeat the GOP.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Furthermore, he was elected by a coalition, not just by conservatives.

If conservatives can elect on their own, why don't we have more conservatives in office?

[Luis Gonzalez]

According to the numbers, Republican and Democratic votes were within 1% of last election; so the "base" did not seem to move. There was a significant swing in the Independent vote to DNC candidates.

The center swung.

The center is primarily made up of apolitical people who do not vote along party lines.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Two thirds of your list are accomplishments (even by your own definition) that you choose to disregard because the entire list is not to your liking.

Here's what a rather famous conservative had to say on that specific subject:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it; 'compromise' was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

Or sixty, or fifty, or...

[Cicero]

I can only speak for myself. Rudy has a wretched record as an abortion extremist, but in his favor I am not aware that he has ever actually DONE anything as a politician to further the cause of abortion. His successor, Bloomberg, has actually been much worse in that regard.

Also, from a practical and constitutional point of view, I would entirely agree that the first major step that needs to be taken is to appoint strict constructionists to SCOTUS and reverse Roe v. Wade, which is an unconstitutional encroachment by tyrannical judges. As you say, return the matter to the states, where it can be fought out among the voters.

I think Rudy could be trusted to do that if he says he would. He has been an honest politician who has refused to lie for convenience. Certainly I would support Rudy over that jackass McCain, and I would vote for him over hillary. He might actually be the man we need to reverse Roe v. Wade in a way that the people could accept, and that's the key: not what a politician says or promises, but what he can do.

So, yes, my mind's open on this.

[jammer]

Yeah, yeah. I know one of your life's ambitions is to equate Bush with Reagan. Can you just come up with an acronym to keep it shorter? People who voted through the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan eras know that is ridiculous--a giant versus, if not a pygmy, then an anti-conservative--so please skip it.

The problem isn't getting 75 or 80 or 60 per cent of what I want. The problem with Bush is getting about 75 or 80 per cent of what I DON'T want.

[dforest]

Just wondering if anyone around here works. Seems like a lot of time is spent on water over the dam instead of spending it on how to plug the holes. 2008 is out there, does it matter?

[Luis Gonzalez]

The quote wasn't about Bush, it was about you.

[neverdem]

The numbers in these polls don't help at all in figuring out who swung. In the 2004 presidential election, we won by 3 points. In the contested 2006 congressional races, we lost by 3 points. That's 1.75% of the voters changing their minds and voting the other way. So the fact that 47% of folks describe themselves as moderate tells you nothing about who swung.

But comment# 112's link also told you about 3 out 5 of the 26 percent registered as Independents voted for the dems this year.

I'm pretty sure that, at least in my neck of the woods, the profile of the vote switcher in 2006 was grumpy independents, who just wanted things to be different. They were pissed of about a variety of things--from Iraq to Christians to abortion to immigration to federal spending--but to call them libertarian is an insult to Frederick Hayek and Milton Friedman.

I'm sure most of them don't study Hayek and Friedman, but many small 'l' libertarians don't care for either the statists and authoritarians in each major party or their fiscal irresponsibilty. In a number of states the percentage registered as Independents is greater than either the dems or pubbies, sometimes both. So I wouldn't be surprised if the number of small 'l' libertarians was on the higher side of that 10 - 15 percent range.

[ModelBreaker]

So I wouldn't be surprised if the number of small 'l' libertarians was on the higher side of that 10 - 15 percent range.

Dream on. If you were right, it would be simplicity itself to lower taxes, and to eliminate the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts because over half the population would support smaller and less intrusive government. Unfortunately--and I mean unfortunately--you are wrong. Lowering taxes even a little is a HUGE battle and there is no chance ANY federal agency will be eliminated for the next twenty years.

The only substantial population block that is usually in favor of less intrusive government are the conservative Christians and they comprise only 35% of the population, thereabouts. The small 'l's are a very tiny portion of the population. Would that it were otherwise. Ask yourself, if more than 50% of the voters strongly believe in smaller government, why is the government getting bigger every year? The reason is, we have less than 50%.

The whole point of this "libertarian" defection schtick the media has run of late is to split the small government coalition. A lot of small 'l's here are buying it--it suits their fantasies of having a lot of political power--but the thesis has almost no evidentiary support.

Now, if, by "libertarian", you mean unaffiliated voters that support small gvt when it suits them and big gvt when it suits them, then the "libertarians" defected. If, by "libertarian", you mean folks whose main political belief is "Why can't we all just get along?", then the libertarians defected.

[goldstategop]

I am a traditional values sort of conservative so I'm resigned to the reality the country doesn't agree with me about the importance of upholding the rails that contribute to a civilized society's existence. I will never change my views about right and wrong regardless of election results. Its who I am.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[jammer]

Sure it was about me, with reference to Bush. That's who we are evaluating, not me. And I replied with not only my thinking, but what is evident to any honest conservative. The man, no matter the "good" things he may have done, never mind that it was his job and that he owed it to the people who elected him, has put in place policies that range from the ill-conceived and bad to the disastrous. And you know it.

CFR wasn't a 60 or 70 percent compromise. Part D wasn't a 60 or 70 percent compromise. No Child gets Ahead wasn't a 60 or 70 percent compromise. Those were gratuitous, wanton assaults on the integrity of the Republic.

[neverdem]

What a thread to have resurrected!

A Frothy Mixture of Collectivism and Conservatism

If you see any good analyses of last month's debacle, please give me a ping.

[KDD]

I and others tried to moderate the venom spewing from the mouths of social conservatives during the Schiavo debacle. I warned them that using what William Buckley called "the killing language" would alienate the majority, which had a different view of what was happening in Pinellas Park.

In 2003 I warned of this possible outcome. The GOP ignored the warnings of conservatives like me and paid the price at the polls. Frist managed to prove how deep their myopia was at the same time p***ing off some 12 million predominately young people with his Unlawfull Gambling Act, covertly slipped into the Port Security Bill in the dead of night. I suspect this was one reason for the much higher turnout among the 20-34 year old crowd. The online "Velvet Revolution" managed to turn Bill Leach out (the author of the bill) and who knows what other damage overall to the GOP chances in 2006.