Saturday, November 6

Moral values

Terence P. Jeffrey writes, It's the Culture, Stupid
While there were many important issues in last week's historic election, the single most important one for the largest bloc of voters was not the economy, the Iraq War, or the Terror War. It was the cultural war.

Democrat John Kerry was defeated by a resolute army of voters who marched out in massive numbers to strike a peaceful blow at the ballot box for a traditionalist vision of American society.
Another cultural conservative similarly argues it's A question of values
It stunned the Democrats and many in the media, but it shouldn't have. Voters who care about moral values delivered the election to President Bush. Even with an uncertain economy and problems in Iraq, Mr. Bush rode social conservatism to victory.
Come on, it was one of a number of issues. On the other hand, as Jim Rutenberg writes, Poll Question Stirs Debate on Meaning of 'Values', liberals are afraid that the Republicans will use this as a "mandate":
...some Democrats and independent pollsters say these assumptions are largely based on a flawed polling question that has skewed the results to make it seem as if cultural matters had a more powerful effect than they actually did. Though they acknowledge that cultural issues were important in Mr. Bush's re-election, they say they worry that that Republicans and Mr. Bush will act forcefully on a false mandate...

Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster....said that if "moral values" was really a "catchall" with a confused meaning, then more Democrats would have picked it. Of the 22 percent who chose "moral values," 80 percent were Bush supporters, 20 percent were Kerry supporters. "It's self-selected by people for whom these issues are very important for their votes," he said, adding that the margin by which Mr. Bush carried these voters arguably made the difference in the election.

The Economist wrote:
All 11 states that held ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage approved them. Together with the Republican success at turning out the base, that suggests Mr Rove’s ambition to win the 2004 election by using social issues to mobilise 4m "missing" evangelical Protestants (who, he says, could have voted for Mr Bush in 2000 but did not) worked triumphantly.

Yet there is counter-evidence. When asked directly about their attitudes to abortion, the responses this time were no different from 2000: 55% said it should be always or mostly legal. On gay marriage, 26% approved and 35% supported civil unions. So it is possible that "moral values" are not just a matter of social conservatism but also code for trust in the candidate, or respect for a man’s willingness to take a stand—where Mr Bush won easily. Mr Kerry never quite managed to persuade voters of his leadership qualities.
But "moral values" is awfully broad. I find CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer's Moral Values Malarkey more nuanced. He cites the exit poll questions
Which issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president? Here are the results:

18% 80%
80% 18%
14% 86%
73% 26%
77% 23%
43% 57%
73% 26%

Analysts and commentators have been stunned that moral issues would trump the other biggies. From this single result, where moral values trounced economy/jobs by a whole two percentage points, both gloaters and mourners have extrapolated a fatal flaw in the Democratic Party and all it encompasses. An industry of values voter literature has mushroomed in just the few days since the election. It’s misguided.

While the nexus of issues boiled into the words "moral values" certainly were a big factor in this election, it’s being exaggerated partly because of the oddities of the poll itself and partly because the Big Theory conforms with what Republican strategists want you to believe.

First, the poll: If the poll had been worded or constructed only slightly differently, moral values would not have been the top issue. We’re building a worldview out of a small, odd vista.

If, for example, one of the issues on the list was a combined "terrorism and Iraq," it would have been the top concern of 34 percent of the electorate and nobody would be talking about moral values.

If "taxes, jobs and the economy" was on the list as one item instead of two, it would have been the topper at 25 percent.

If, say, abortion rights, gay marriage and moral values were all on the list separately, the numbers would be very different.

...since it is now an accepted crisis for the Democrats that the values voters who were 22 percent of the electorate went for the Republican by an 80-18 margin, it must follow that it’s a crisis for Republicans that the 20 percent who care most about the economy and jobs went 80-18 for the Democrat.

Is it a crisis for the Republicans that the huge, 45 percent slice of the electorate that describes itself as moderate went for Kerry 54-45?

Is it a crisis for the Republicans first time voters went 53-46 for Kerry? Doesn’t that make an ominous sign for the future?

It’s argued that the Democrats are in hot water because the rural voters who made up 16 percent of the electorate went 59-40 for Bush. Is it a crisis for the Republicans that the 13 percent that live in big cities went 60-39 for Kerry?

The voting behavior of Americans does divvy up into some pretty stark and feuding neighborhoods. Rural voters and heavy church-goers vote Republican. City people and church-avoiders vote Democratic. These cleavages have persisted in several elections.

Those divides may be a crisis for the country; they may describe a culture war, at least for the politically active. It is not an inherent crisis for Democrats alone. And the inability to win the allegiance of people who care most about the amorphous thing currently called moral values is not at the top of the Democrats problems. Republicans, however, want people to believe that the Democrats are simply categorically different than the good people who care about moral things.

After debunking this theory du jour with such vitriol, permit me the Kerryesque weakness of making a few qualifiers.

I do think many active Democrats – appointees, consultants, volunteers, and partisans – have a deep disrespect for religious people, old-fashioned people and country people. It’s palpable and it’s deplorable and Democrats deny it. And it means that party activists and related groups bring to forum issues that are in fact unpopular, like support for gay marriage.

I also think many active Republicans are just as snotty, they just pretend better.

And I think many religious people, old-fashioned people and country people have a profound disrespect for "liberals" and people they disagree with and people who aren’t like them. But that is sort of reverse snobbery so it’s okay.

Democratic politicians – at least the ones who score big in national politics – have a fundamental conflict; they always purport to represent people who aren’t very much like them; they are rich and white and pedigreed and claim to represent the poor or the working class or gays or minorities. Republicans don’t have that problem; they tend to represent themselves and their kind.

Similarly, in The Values-Vote Myth David Brooks writes,
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.

No comments: