The Values-Vote Myth

[BuckNaked]

I think the letter from Sad American is awesome, and I know that it speaks for several people that I know personally.

Based on the 10 or so Democrats that started out running for the nomination, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that I would vote for Bush again. Lieberman was the only Democrat running that I would have even considered, and I never thought he had a chance at the nomination.

 

[Professor Mouse]

Lieberman would have been a good choice for them, but I suppose the Howard Dean allure swayed Democrats from their ultimate goal. I think we all saw where the effective grass-roots campaigning happened. The right worked from an organized, corporate model. Logically framework, emotional appeal (I suppose I shouldn't be giving away the trade secrets )

 

[Galahad]

Just found this article this morning elsewhere. Thanks Bet. When the press jumped on the "values" explanation it seemed more they were trying to explain it away and marginalize the result. There do seem to be some voices in the last few days from the Democrat side of the coin talking about the need to understand this...which is at least better that the initial "red states are stupid Neanderthals" response. But what I find most interesting is that the same exit polls that were so wrong about the actual votes are what is being used as the primary source of evidence that the election hinged, after all, on "values" despite the fact that the campaigns were being run and covered on less nebulous issues. If the exit polls were wrong on the actual results, why are we trusting them on the internals?

 

[AllyandJack]

I think it was CNN that said that 36% of polled Bush voters said they voted on the basis of morals. So, 64% voted on other issues. They said 32% voted on the issue of terrorism. So, that leaves another 32% that voted for Bush for other reasons.

My opinion, and I hope it doesn't cause a hoopla on this thread, is that certain left-leaning media outfits are proclaiming this as the reason because they can't admit that the vast majority of Americans simply don't agree with them. They're not impressed with a concert by Bruce or a movie by Michael or a song by Barbra. They don't view the rich as evil-doers (love that term) and they don't support a government run healthcare system. So, they make it a religious argument. Gee...America really DOES agree with these policies, but their religion got in the way. It's an easy out.

I'm not religious. I support gay marriage and I'm pro-choice. I voted for Bush. Along with 64% of other Bush voters, I voted on other issues and not religious/moral issues. I'm in the majority. But, nobody wants to admit that.

 

[Buckalew11]

Good post Ally and Jack. I think you are right!

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by Galahad
Just found this article this morning elsewhere. Thanks Bet. When the press jumped on the "values" explanation it seemed more they were trying to explain it away and marginalize the result. There do seem to be some voices in the last few days from the Democrat side of the coin talking about the need to understand this...which is at least better that the initial "red states are stupid Neanderthals" response. But what I find most interesting is that the same exit polls that were so wrong about the actual votes are what is being used as the primary source of evidence that the election hinged, after all, on "values" despite the fact that the campaigns were being run and covered on less nebulous issues. If the exit polls were wrong on the actual results, why are we trusting them on the internals?

That's a good question, and one that I'm still looking for an answer for. It's my understanding that the exit poll results are adjusted to reflect the results of the actual vote count, and that's why they are "reliable" now. But I'm not convinced that gives them more credibility than when they were dead wrong, on the afternoon of the election.

Why not stand up to the press and express your disgust at labelling....on both sides?

That's exactly what I"m doing, by posting this information and refuting the spin of the press. It's the only way I can thnk of that I can actually "stand up to the press".

 

[bsnyder]

More data on the exit polls:

A Question of Values
By GARY LANGER

Published: November 6, 2004


A poorly devised exit poll question and a dose of spin are threatening to undermine our understanding of the 2004 presidential election.

The news media has made much of the finding that a fifth of voters picked "moral values" as the most important issue in deciding their vote - as many as cited terrorism or the economy. The conclusion: moral values are ascendant as a political issue.

The reporting accurately represents the exit poll data, but not reality. While morals and values are critical in informing political judgments, they represent personal characteristics far more than a discrete political issue. Conflating the two distorts the story of Tuesday's election.

This distortion comes from a question in the exit poll, co-sponsored by the national television networks and The Associated Press, that asked voters what was the most important issue in their decision: taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values or health care. Six of these are concrete, specific issues. The seventh, moral values, is not, and its presence on the list produced a misleading result.

How do we know? Pre-election polls consistently found that voters were most concerned about three issues: Iraq, the economy and terrorism. When telephone surveys asked an open-ended issues question (impossible on an exit poll), answers that could sensibly be categorized as moral values were in the low single digits. In the exit poll, they drew 22 percent.

Why the jump? One reason is that the phrase means different things to people. Moral values is a grab bag; it may appeal to people who oppose abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research but, because it's so broadly defined, it pulls in others as well. Fifteen percent of non-churchgoers picked it, as did 12 percent of liberals.

Look, too, at the other options on the list. Four of them played to John Kerry's strengths: economy/jobs, health care, education, Iraq. Just two worked in President Bush's favor: terrorism and taxes. If you were a Bush supporter, and terrorism and taxes didn't inspire you, moral values was your place to go on the exit poll questionnaire. People who picked it voted for him by 80 percent to 18 percent.

Moral values, moreover, is a loaded phrase, something polls should avoid. (Imagine if "patriotism" were on the list.) It resonates among conservatives and religious Americans. While 22 percent of all voters marked moral values as their top issue, 64 percent of religious conservatives checked it. And among people who said they were mainly interested in a candidate with strong religious faith (just 8 percent, in a far more balanced list of candidate attributes), 61 percent checked moral values as their top issue. So did 42 percent of people who go to church more than once a week, 41 percent of evangelical white Christians and 37 percent of conservatives.

The makeup and views of the electorate in other measures provide some context for the moral values result. The number of conservative white Protestants or weekly churchgoing white Protestants voting (12 percent and 13 percent of voters, respectively) did not rise in 2004. Fifty-five percent of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Sixty percent said they supported either gay marriage (25 percent) or civil unions (an additional 35 percent).

Opinion researchers don't always agree. The exit poll is written by a committee, and that committee voted down my argument against including "moral values" in the issues list. That happens - and the exit poll overall did deliver a wealth of invaluable data. The point is not to argue that moral values, however defined, are not important. They are, and they should be measured. The intersection of religiosity, ideology and politics is the staging ground for many of the most riveting social issues of our day.

The point, instead, is that this hot-button catch phrase had no place alongside defined political issues on the list of most important concerns in the 2004 vote. Its presence there created a deep distortion - one that threatens to misinform the political discourse for years to come.


Gary Langer is the director of polling for ABC News.

 

[Galahad]

I found this article today that states well an argument I've tried to make before....which is essentially that in many cases it is the "simple" folks on the right that are taking a more nuanced look at the world, even though it is the prevailing opinion that the intellectual left are the more thoughtful among us.

Winning the "I Don't Know" Crowd
The problem with Democrats is that they've become the party of moral absolutism.
by Libby Sternberg
11/09/2004 12:00:00 AM





IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE on domestic issues, CBS newsman Bob Schieffer asked one of the best questions of all three forums: Do you think homosexuality is a choice?

The true merit of the question was lost in the subsequent hubbub over Sen. John Kerry's reference to Dick Cheney's daughter's sexuality. A gasp was heard round the nation as viewers recoiled. The majority of people polled thought Kerry's response was inappropriate. Maybe they weren't sure why, but Miss Manners could provide an answer: It's bad form for someone to exploit a highly personal issue involving your kid to try to score points against you.

For that reason, Kerry's answer became the focus of the punditry and the deeper meaning of the question was obscured.

If Schieffer had merely asked the candidates' positions on gay marriage, he would have received the usual barrage of talking points from each man. And, the candidates did, in fact, resort to those talking points as the discussion unfolded.

For a moment, though, Schieffer sought to uncover the underlying thought process behind the talking points. He sought out the "why," not just the "how" or "what."

If Schieffer's question was insightful, President Bush's answer was refreshingly frank. "I don't know," he responded.

Chances are if you asked most Americans the same question, they'd respond in the same way. And therein lies at least part of the answer to why Republicans are winning in the values department. They are now the party of the "I don't know" crowd, the people who are concerned about moral issues and haven't yet taken absolutist positions, but aren't comfortable with an absolutist group forcing moral fiats down their throats.

Evangelical Christians, who turned out strong for Bush this year, do not make up a majority. In fact, they don't make up enough of a majority to pass gay marriage bans in 11 states. To do that, you need the votes of people who are believers--in some sense of the word--but who are more likely to be uncomfortable with absolutist moral approaches in general. Including those of the left.

It's ironic, isn't it? The left is made up of scores of people ready to paint Bush and Republicans with the "moral extremist" label. "Bush's victory signals the triumph of belief over fact," Garry Wills moaned in the New York Times two days after the election. He sees the election in stark terms--the victory of fundamentalism over reason. In other words, if you don't share Wills's values and voted for Bush, you're stupid.

Maureen Dowd claimed the president "ran a jihad" in America--"jihad" is a word Wills used as well. And columnist Thomas Friedman wondered if he lives in a country where religion trumps science, lamenting that the Americans who voted for Bush have a different vision of what America is.


AND PERHAPS there's some truth in that claim. Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush have doubts about whether homosexuality is a choice and don't want to rush to change sexual-bond institutions that have benefited society for centuries because of an extremist agenda that implies either you're for gay marriage or you're a bigot.

Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush have questions about when life really begins and don't want to support a party that refuses to acknowledge those concerns.

Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush wonder just how much involvement between church and state constitutes an infringement on First Amendment proscriptions against state-sponsored religion. Maybe they are troubled by absolutists who want to wipe faith out of every aspect of public life.


THESE DOUBTS and concerns don't make them stupid or intolerant or bigoted or faith-based zealots ready to wage a jihad against those who disagree with them. It makes them average Americans. When Bush acknowledged his own doubts about the homosexuality question, he was speaking to them, telling them they don't deserve the ugly labels absolutists from the left use to denigrate their concerns. He was legitimizing their reasonable doubts about the left's absolutist ideology on values--gay marriage, unrestricted abortion, and an approach to state/church issues that more resembles the intolerance of anti-religion China than the tolerance of state-sponsored-religion England.

In other words, in the moral values debate, perhaps the Republican voters saw the left as the fundamentalists waging their own jihad, unwilling to acknowledge reasonable differences of opinions, let alone well-motivated doubts.

If Democrats are to regain the moral-values crowd, they don't need to pander to the devout with photo ops at church services and well-timed references to the Almighty. They don't even need to be particularly religious. They just have to learn to humbly acknowledge that moral issues are thorny and require thoughtful consideration. And they have to respect the opinions and doubts of others.


© Copyright 2004 Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

 

[caitycaity]

stands claps and whistles for gina2000!

 

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by bsnyder
A voter speaks about the Values-Vote Myth:

How You Could Have Had My Vote
It's been two days since John Kerry conceded, and all I am seeing, hearing and reading from the Democratic party is that you guys think you lost on "moral values." You seem to think this means nothing more than opposition to gay marriage. You seem to think that Bush voters waited in line for hours to stick it to the queers, to tell those ******s how much we hate them!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many Bush voters, like myself, were not happy to be voting for the President's re-election. Many Bush voters agonized over our decision and cast our vote in fear, trepidation, and trembling. Many of us would have given our left arms for a Democrat we could have supported.

Because I am too young to be as disillusioned as I am, and because I know that one-party rule is not good for my country, and because it is my deepest wish to see the Democratic party change into one I can give my whole-hearted support, I am going to explain why you didn't get my vote, and how you can get it in the future.

First, for context, let me give you a bit about my perspective: I am a single, heterosexual, college-educated woman in my late 20's with an annual income of about $30,000. I live in a solidly red state in the South, the region you guys wrote off entirely without even trying to persuade us to vote for you. I am not an ideologue, and I experience painful ambivalence about many political issues. The notion of an abortion makes me queasy, but I don't want Roe vs. Wade overturned. I have friends who've been impregnated by rape and friends who found out late in their third trimesters that they were carrying babies too malformed to ever have normal lives. The pictures of Iraqi children who've lost arms from the bombs my tax dollars bought make me shed tears, but I recognize that the war was the right thing to do, given the information we had available at the time the decision was made. I had no health insurance for three years, but I'm still, hesitantly, not in favor of socialized medicine. I know people who abuse the social services, but I also have friends who would be dead without the food stamps and SSI checks they collect each month. I believe in God and consider myself a Christian, but I don't go to church, and Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk scare me more than they scare you. I believe that in a perfect world, Roy Moore would have to live with the stench of his own ego, just like the rest of us do.

I have gay friends who are closeted and gay friends who couldn't be more open if they had QUEER tattooed across their foreheads, and I think they should be allowed to get married if they want to. I read The Onion, Dilbert, Dan Savage's sex advice, Salon.com, and quite a few blogs. The local librarians know me on sight. I waited in line until midnight when the fifth Harry Potter book came out. I can't wait to see the new Chucky movie. I will probably shack up before I get married, but I won't be proud of it. I wouldn't buy an SUV, even if I could pay cash for one. I recycle. I shop at Wal-mart, but I feel guilty about it, and if they unionized, I would never cross the picket line. I think FOX News is about as fair and balanced as a seesaw with a gorilla on one end.

President Bush's close relationships to people like John Ashcroft scare me. I hate the PATRIOT Act and am fearful of what might be part of PATRIOT II. The two dumbest trial balloons I've heard floated for his second-term agenda are privatizing Social Security and abolishing the income tax. When he says that God chose him to be President during this time of trial, I am embarrassed. I roll my eyes.

I am a pragmatic, disillusioned, realistic, and entirely ordinary member of the radical middle.

Here is why you didn't get my vote:

1. You didn't give me clear positions on the issues. I followed the news closely all through the campaign, but I still don't understand Kerry's position on Iraq. I know he voted for the IWR, but then he voted against the $87 billion. To you, that seemed to be a symbolic stand against Saddam Hussein (the IWR) but also a principled stand against a President who was out of control (against the $87 billion). To me, that was just confusing. He said he would have done everything different, but he also said that, knowing what he knew today (the day he was asked) he still would have cast the same vote. He said that he would bring allies to our side to share the burden, but he also said he would be sending 40,000 more of our troops. He said that we must finish the job, but he also said it was the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time. Huh?

2. You didn't convince me that you would defend America against the threats of terrorism. Kerry seemed to think that terrorism is like any other crime. You catch the people responsible and put them in jail, and that's that. After seeing the destruction – physical, financial, psychological, and emotional -- wrought by the September 11th attacks, I do not understand how he could believe this. The hijackers lived among us, ate at our restaurants, shopped in our malls, and wounded us worse than we have ever been wounded before. How Kerry saw this as a crime, and not as a paradigm-shifting event that deserved a military response, both in direct retaliation and to keep it from ever happening again by going on the offensive, is something I don't understand.

3. You insulted my intelligence by the constant mantra of Kerry's service in Vietnam. Most of the men I know who are older than 50 served in some way, either in country or in the Coast Guard or other non-combat roles. I don't see the relevance, and the drumbeat of "three purple hearts" struck me as manipulation. It was as if you were saying, "These dumb**** hawks want war? We'll give 'em a real war hero! That'll get their votes!"

4. Your constant references to the opinions of the rest of the world scared me, and I'm not talking about the "global test" comment. I don't care what Europeans think about me or my country. I learned in high school that living my life with one eye on the opinions of everyone else leads only to unnecessary turmoil and pointless pain. Why didn't you?

5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich. Rich people were talked about in this campaign as though they were all evil cheaters who had wage slaves tied up in the basement to be flogged for minimum wage, and what they didn't earn from the wage slaves' labor, they stole from nursing home residents. I am not rich, but I work hard, am learning about investing money, am continuing to improve my prospects for earning more money in the future, and fully expect to end up at least well-off someday. If I do, it will be because of my efforts and work, not because of winning "life's lottery." I know two millionaires personally. Both are entrepreneurs who took big risks and worked their backsides off for years to get where they are. Given that Kerry is married to a billionaire, this seemed especially hypocritical.

6. Here is something you could work on right about now: I could not stomach to listen to your incessant hatred of President Bush. Bush is stupid, Bush is an idiot, Bush is Hitler, Bush is a Nazi, Bush masturbates to photos of dead Iraqi babies, I'd vote for my dog before I'd vote for Bush, I'd vote for Castro before I'd vote for Bush, the Rethuglicans are fascists, Bush voters are treasonous, Bush should be impeached, blah blah blah blah blah blah. It was old three months after Bush's inauguration, and it's now just tiresome. I don't hate my President, even though I voted for him with more reluctance than I can express and a queasy feeling in my stomach. Language like this makes you seem immature, needlessly vulgar, and obnoxious.

7. Lastly, and I hope this doesn't hurt anyone feelings, because my objective is to make you think, not emote: I don't think you really want my vote. I actively sought out your perspective. I tuned in regularly, for months, to your biggest media project, your serious effort to get your message out: Air America Radio. I listened all day on Good Friday as host after host mocked people like me for believing in Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. I listened as Janeane Garofalo, who was one of my favorite comedians for years, expressed hatred and disgust for Bush voters so vile that I ended my live stream feeling assaulted, as if I'd been vomited on. I listened the night that Mike Malloy told a young Republican to hang up the phone and go open a vein. I listened to pure, unadulterated venom that was so intense I sometimes cut the stream and cried. Tonight, your spokespeople on AAR have been calling people like me "snake-handling evangelicals," and that was about the kindest thing I heard. Um…y'all? I've lived in the South my entire life and have never met a single snake-handler. Your attitudes, language, and behavior toward people like me: reasonable, thinking Christians who are quite moderate politically and who are just as well-informed as you are (yes, I've read all the PNAC essays, too, and yes, they scare me, too) is reminiscent of nothing so much as an abusive ex-lover, a crazy and drunken stalker. "I'll make you love me, or you'll regret it, you worthless *****! Come here and let me beat you over the head and tell you how stupid and worthless you are! Then you'll see it my way!"


I tried so hard to give you guys a chance. I'm young, I'm not extremely religious, and I'm supportive of liberal ideals like fighting for higher wages, stopping outsourcing of jobs, and standing up for the little guy. I wanted to vote Democratic this time, more than I can possibly put into words. You just didn't give me the option.

President Bush won on values, yes, but not hatred of gays or any other stereotype you have in your head about Bush voters like me.

He won because he has values, clearly defined values, and even though I agree with little of what he believes, at least I know what he believes. At least I know that he really does believe in something. At least I know that he will do what he says he will do.

That's disgustingly little, but unbelievably – you offered me less.

So, if you want my vote next time, and the vote of all my close friends, and the millions more like us that you refuse to believe exists, it's pretty simple: take positions and don't waffle on them. Stand up for America, especially with regard to terrorism. Shut up about what Germany and France think. Stop pretending that the only way to become wealthy in America is to cheat, for the sake of those of us who still want to get there. Treat the President with at least as much civility, if not respect, as you would've wanted right-wingers to give a President Kerry. Most importantly, please, please please, please, please, please stop abusing me. No more verbal and psychological and emotional savagery. Treat me like a voter whose vote you would actually appreciate getting, and you will get it.

Do you maybe, just maybe, see where I'm coming from?

I doubt it. But I had to try.


Sincerely,


A Very Sad American

This is is something I can understand and mostly agree with. As an objective observer (non-American living here), and with no real stake in this election, this piece bears out pretty well my observations. It's kind of sad to see the aftermath - like a big stake driven right down the middle of the country, with no one willing to work together for better solutions. Just division and petty fighting. That is more worrisome than having Bush for four more years, regardless of what you believe in.