May 14, 2005
Overvalued?
Much has been made at Watchblog, in Washington, and even in the Mainstream Media about the influence of social conservatives - “values voters” - in the recent presidential election. Certainly the values voters were a newly identifiable group, which is what made them news, but were they in fact new, and can they really be credited with Bush’s second victory?
History
A bit of history is in order (or you can just skip to the Conclusion). "Values" as an issue first became a campaign issue for George W. Bush in the 2000 contest, when he tried to use it to sway voters who felt that the general unsavoriness of the Clinton White House was reason enough to vote against Al Gore. That strategy gained very little traction among swing voters, but it had the (perhaps intentional) effect of getting a strong turnout from the conservative Southern base of the Republican party. The Democrats lost both Tennessee and Arkansas, home states of Gore and Clinton, essentially dropping a curtain on their last hopes of denting the new Solid South. Even with strong turnout from the GOP base, Bush only "tied" the election, though the political coin toss went Bush's way and Gore was cast into outer darkness by Democrats who were horrified that Gore lost the election to a man who did not demonstrate a collegiate mastery of English.
In the October 2000 debates, Bush won voters over by convincing us that he was (a) a uniter, not a divider, (b) less ambitious, and (c) not as made-over as Al Gore.
Four years later, Bush is a different man. He is the most divisive president since Lincoln, the most ambitious president since Wilson, and the most made-over president since, um, Clinton. While I dislike many of these changes, I personally give him credit for sincerity. Before 9/11, Bush was as-promised. He treated the Arab-Israeli dispute with benign neglect. His major policy initiative was No Child Left Behind, which featured a high-profile compromise with Ted Kennedy. And before 9/11 his image was so laughable it can't possibly have been made-over.
On 9/11, of course, his charisma and leadership skills gave him a sense the backing of almost every American and (in his mind) gave him a mandate the election hadn't. It also woke him up from the Zaphod Beeblebrox-esque snooze he'd been enjoying ever since his election. I think 9/11 really changed Bush as a man, and he resolved to change the world according to the theories of his neo-conservative advisors.
And the rest is history: the popular war in Afghanistan, the less popular war in Iraq, the polarization of the country around the latter.
Does this seem to you a fair assessment of the Bush presidency? Did I leave anything out that deserves to be in a blurb of that length? Personally, I think these are the main facts of the Bush presidency as seen by most Americans. And 'values' haven't had anything to do with it.
In that context, Bush faced a challenge from a poorly prepared Democratic candidate. Where 2000 was Gore's election to lose, 2004 was Bush's. He almost did. Both parties correctly deemed that the "swing" category so familiar from previous elections had all but evaporated. When the polls closed, Bush had won a clear-cut victory, and a horde of reporters moved in to hold an inquest on the death of John Kerry.
The first fact to jump out at the reporters was that "moral values" polled very strongly among Republican voters in exit polls. This was new. Never before had they seen numbers like the 27% who picked it off a fixed list in Pew's post-election survey. Of course, in the same survey, only 14% of voters polled picked moral values when they were asked the same question in an open-ended manner. Why had this group never surfaced before? Probably because they were never asked.
In 2000, Pew's post-election survey didn't include any picklist. But a hefty 28% of Bush voters who said the issues mattered most to them picked abortion as their main issue. That can safely be considered a stand-in for the "values" umbrella, especially when we recall that gay marriage and Janet Jackson's breast were not yet national issues. Pew's similar publications for '92 and '96 are silent on the issues.
Typologies
Another way Pew provides for examining the evolution of the 'values voters' is its periodical publications of the political typologies. The most recent set was highlighted over in the blue column. Two of Pew's current groups are relevant: "Social Conservatives" (13% of registered voters) and "Pro-Government Conservatives" (10%), though only a portion of the latter group could fit under the 'value voter' umbrella. In 1999's typology, "Populist Republicans" (10%) are most identifiably values-driven, but values voters can be found in both the other GOP categories.
In 1994's report the "Moralists" were a hefty 20%. This large group was divided in the next typology between "Moderate" and "Populist" Republicans. The 1987 typologies are not available on their website, but the 1994 study says that the "Moralist" group almost doubled since '87.
If we are to say that the values voters had a 'coming out', it can be best identified as the presidency of George H. W. Bush, not that of his son. As the 1994 Pew study tells us, many of the millions of new "Moralists" came from the Democratic camp. It's easy to see how: they had grown up supporting Truman and Johnson on poverty and civil rights, and had voted for Carter, who described himself as "born-again". After a couple terms of voting for Reagan, they came back to the Democratic Party to find it had changed in their absence. The Moral Majority movement which threatened to split the GOP in the 1980's was kept in the fold and ultimately strengthened the Party by giving it double-barreled action by allying social and fiscal conservatives.
The Pew data and my own observations force me to conclude that value voters had very little to do with Bush's 2004 victory. Of course, if they all stayed home, that would have swung the election, but this could be said of any large group of voters. Absurdity aside, I think it is safe to say that values voters have been well-corralled by the Republicans for a decade and a half. This was not a new grouping of voters, the way "Soccer Moms" were in the 1990's, but a well-established one, albeit one with fuzzy edges.
Without entering into a full discussion of the matter, I submit that a different group of voters was principally responsible for Bush's reelection: the "Disaffected" typology. We don't know these folks: they're politically inactive, and they don't think much of either party. They don't read WatchBlog. But a decent number of them vote, and based on the numbers I'm looking at, this appears to be the principal constituency that swung to Bush.
A quick look at the various Pew polls show that "Disaffecteds" accounted for 7% of registered voters in 1994 and 10% in 1999 and 2005. That's quite a significant number. More impressively, they have moved from voting for Clinton by a 2-1 margin in both elections to voting for Bush 2-1 in 2004. Unfortunately, I did not see data for 2000. These voters (called "Embittereds" in the 1994 study) have "family ties to the Democratic Party" but doubt "the competence of Bill Clinton and the Democrats". Of this group, 36% self-identified as Democrats in 1994, 16% as Republicans. In 2005, 30% are Republicans and 2% are Democrats! Some of this change is certainly due to group re-definition, but the difference is staggering.
The true right-ward shift, then, appears to be among the disaffected, not the value voters. The animating issues for these voters are the simple ones - after all, one of their principle identifiers is that they have little interest in politics. Bush's hometown style, his toughness and sticktoitiveness on Iraq, and his lack of enamorment with the finer things, philosophically as much as physically, have made him a huge favorite down in the non-nattering classes. Unfortunately, I did not see Pew data on Disaffecteds' votes in 2000, so it is difficult to know how much impact the war had in pulling them to the Red side. War or no war, however, they voted on Bush's image. Values are part of that, for sure. However, the answer for the Democrats is not to go out and get some nice, feminine Joe Lieberman type. It's to go out and get somebody macho, who is tough enough to earn their votes, and has the gonads to stand up to America's enemies. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... Hillary Clinton.
Posted by Chops at May 14, 2005 02:00 AMI am one of those you speak of here. I was originally pagan, originally liberal, originally Libertarian…still the last one to some degree. In my own way, I found god, found my true politics, and found my real belief system.
somewhere along the line, I grew up. I turned 34, fathered a second child, and really took a hard look at what I believe is right for this country.
And in that look, I saw a lot of flawed thinking. The libertarians offered nothing but angry conspiracy hounds as candidates and the liberal left offers me stuffed shirt, arrogant, botox taking, scandalmongers, who outright lie and distort the meaning of “middle America”, “The heart and soul of America”, and “Conservative values”.
So, I was left with the only logical choice…the cowboy, with good basic character, sound ideas, that talked like my grandfather, who’s ideas I had shunned and called “stupid”…until now.
And then, I heard Kerry and the like call those ideals “stupid”, “backwards”, and “ignorant”. I assessed for myself why they thought so and it all came down to political mudslinging and leftist bias.
I know that the right is not free of that either, but the core values I have always held deep down, the manner of being that suits me best, comes from John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, and G. W. Bush. All banter about the obvious flaws in all three men aside, that is what swayed me. But, I believe you are right in your analysis.
Posted by: Richard at May 14, 2005 04:05 AMChops,
I’d sure like to these theories applied to current polling data, maybe even giving me an idea of what those ‘Disaffected Bush Voters’ think of him now. And, maybe explain if social Conservative/’values voters’ played no significant part in the 2004 election, why does Bill Frist continue to do their bidding, to the detriment of the Republican Party?
The fact that I’m seeing much more downplaying, dismissing and distancing from the social Conservative Evangelicals by principled Republicans, means you’ve finally recognized the problem. The fact that you continue to frame the debate in 2004 election rhetoric and ‘wedge issues’ talking points (see Richard’s comment post), means nothing is going to change in the GOP, as a result.
The Right continues to operate as though the last six months of Bush’s second term never happened.
And, where your argument falters Chops, is your conspicuous use of mainly General and Mid-Term election data. Where the social Conservatives hold sway over the Republicans, are in local, primary and state elections. Here in Illinois, they are now able to dictate the entire General Election slate of Republicans (including Governor and US Senate), because of a proven ability to turn out their base at every election.
Can you really deem such a group as ‘overvalued’, when they are forcing Bill Frist to defy his own party on ‘the nuclear option’?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 14, 2005 06:52 AMChops, your article just made me realize the pickle the GOP has gotten itself in. As it continues to draw ever more religious right extremists into the fold and exerting influence on the GOP, the GOP support from moderate middle Americans wanes. To continue on a winning path, the GOP cannot afford to lose either. Yet it must lose one or the other for they are not tolerant of each other’s agendas.
Middle moderates do not want separation of church and state torn down, do not want Soc Sec ended by a new privatized system, and they don’t want to lose anymore of their sons and daughters to elective foreign conflicts. All postions opposed by the religious right. Yep, one helluva pickle. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The same thing happened to Democrats due to the Civil Rights acts of the 60’s which alienated Southern Democrats who finally found a home in the GOP.
Something both major parties seem to always forget is that the one main value most Americans have in common is their desire for responsible and well managed government. One can hardly say raising the national debt from 5.5 to 8 trillion in 5 years meets that value expectation. Every working American now pays over $2000 per year on average in taxes just in interest on that debt. And they don’t get a single extra inch of road, not one extra rifle, not one more teacher for that $2000 - nada, nothing, just another day older and deeper in debt, thanks to Republicans who have controlled it all.
Republicans take $2000 from tax payers and give them nothing back for it every year and then they have the gaul to turn around and try to sell the taxpayers on giving up a guaranteed Soc. Sec. benefit which they have already paid into? That is the best joke yet… but Bush ain’t laughing. The worse the polls get on this subject, the harder he tries to sell it. Kinda like a Jehovah’s witness who won’t leave your doorstep until you convert — guaranteed to be a self defeating measure.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 14, 2005 07:31 AMBert - That’s the “great thing” about Disaffecteds. They don’t care. They don’t write letters to senators, or even read in the paper what the senators are doing. Bush got them to show up and punch his ticket on the Big Day, and they’ve gone into political hybernation for another 4 years.
David - I’d be very interested to see any polling data that supports your position. I tried to get beyond the simple “spectrum” analogy we usually use, by means of Pew’s typology structure. Which of the groups is Bush losing? Or, as I suspect, is most of his loss of support on Social Security from the over-55’s who won’t be affected anyway? More importantly, will these voters turn away on election day? For me, I dislike many of Bush’s policies, there isn’t a Democrat since Truman for whom I would have voted instead. I can hold my nose and vote Republican; I can’t imagine a Democrat I could bear to look at on the other side of my ballot.
Posted by: Chops at May 14, 2005 08:28 AMChops,
A new poll shows that nearly 60 percent of 18-39 year olds oppose private accounts if it would mean “a lower guaranteed benefit in retirement.†Similar to conclusions in previous polls, the more people know about privatization, the less likely they are to support it.
9 Jan 05: “Personal accounts, funded by allowing individuals to maintain control of a portion of their payroll taxes, wouldn’t help much, as even advocates acknowledge ‘The solutions we’re talking about are for the more distant future,’ said David John of the conservative Heritage Foundation. ‘It takes at least 25 years for an account to reach a size where it could provide a significant amount of retirement income.’”
It is important to note in the above from the Heritage Foundation that private accounts won’t begin to compete with SS for 25 years after begun. That means (assuming retirement age of 67) that Americans 42 years old and older will not benefit. Yet the age group between 42 and 55 will get squeezed by lower SS benefits without appreciating competitive amounts from private accounts. This age group is perking up and paying attention.
Arizona Poll, Jan 25, 05 “Two national issues, making abortion illegal in America and privatizing any part of Social Security found little support among Arizonans. Forty percent supported making abortion illegal and 36 percent were in favor of privatizing Social Security.”
The Washington Post previewed the results of their latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, which will be out this afternoon for the evening news. This poll confirms what other polls have found: the more Bush tries to sell privatization, the more support he loses.
Compare these recent polls to Bush’s 60%+ support for privatizing in 2001. The more he tries to sell it, the more he loses support and trust. And the issue has coattails which is why some Senate Republicans are wavering, a couple have said it is a dead issue. These are Republicans mind you.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 14, 2005 09:10 AMThe irony here is that Bush may have won over the qualities that are least honest about him, and least beneficial to our nation as a whole.
By that, I mean this: Bush is no good-ol-boy. He was born and educated in New England, went to an Ivy League School. He has a graduate school degree, but never prospered in business on his own skill. He is a product of the very elitist system he uses as a scapegoat for the evils of the world. His accent comes and goes as he needs it to. Get earlier footage of him, and his drawl is replaced by the crisp tones of a person with his education.
As for his persistance, the whole trouble is that the war is not what has his commitment, it’s the discredited means by which he waged it and justified it. The Right conflates that plan with our post-war efforts in the Middle East in general. So, they make the persistence in an error the very definition of patriotism.
We need better men than this in office.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2005 10:29 AMStephen,
“We need better men than this in office.”
Evidently at least 52% of the voters didn’t think so in November.
Posted by: tomd at May 14, 2005 10:57 AMChops,
I very good article with plenty of thought and data. I would tend to agree with you up to a point. I think the GOP done a very good job getting “wedge” issues on key swing state ballots, thus, both “forcing” the values question and ensuring that core constituents turned out for the polls.
In short, I think you have a very good point. However, I think the GOP has been better organized with their overall management and salesmanship than the dems.
Posted by: Tom L at May 14, 2005 11:21 AMThanks for this article, Chops.
“Values” as an issue first became a campaign issue for George W. Bush in the 2000 contest
This actually started back in the 70s with the “Moral Majority”. In fact, the “value voters” helped boot Bush Sr. in 1992 when they abandoned him because he wasn’t “Christian” enough,
George H.W. Bush’s 1992 defeat provoked celebration not just in Clintonite Little Rock but also in some corners of conservative America. “Oh,yeah, man, it was fabulous,” recalled Tom DeLay, the hard-line Texas congressman, who’d feared another “four years of misery” fighting the urge to cross his party’s too-liberal leader. At the Heritage Foundation, a group of right-wingers called the Third Generation conducted a bizarre rite involving a plastic head of the deposed Bush on a platter.
DeLay also tried a coup on Newt Gingrich for Speaker of the House at one point because Newt wasn’t Christian enough.
Chops, your article just made me realize the pickle the GOP has gotten itself in. As it continues to draw ever more religious right extremists into the fold and exerting influence on the GOP, the GOP support from moderate middle Americans wanes.
I really can’t recommend Whitman’s book enough, David. That’s the central point she makes,
By pressing their hard-line views on a key set of social issues so zealously, the social fundamentalists within the party have repudiated not just the true legacy of the Republican Party, but also of the Reagan revolution, widening the divide within the party as well as in the country as a whole.…The success Republican political operatives have had in winning elections by turning out larger portions of smaller parts of the electorate have certainly made them seem like geniuses. I believe that if the Republican Party is going to become a true majority party in America, not just one with the slimmest margin of victory, it has to start looking now beyond the base. It has to broaden its appeal by keeping those Republicans whose moderate positions have made them outcasts and by seeking to bring in those moderate independents and conservative Democrats who have been wandering in the political wilderness in search of a party in which they can feel at home.
Since GOP leaders like DeLay are cheering when conservatives like Bush Sr. and Newt Gingrich get beat down, Republicans ceertainly aren’t going to see any “big tent” action championed from within the party. Moderates are actually being purged.
I can hold my nose and vote Republican; I can’t imagine a Democrat I could bear to look at on the other side of my ballot.
Of course, but why are Republican voters letting the extreme right-wing minority run the nice smelling candidates out of the party?
Posted by: American Pundit at May 14, 2005 11:56 AMChops,
Exellent article, one that sets partisamship aside and promps a debate of politics.
I have one question though, do you think that the 2nd amendment should be part of the “values voters” group?
I think it should because it was the first issue that started the “single issue voter group” and the others came later, but still attract most of the same voters in the values group.
The reason I don’t like articles like this is because they are about the candidates and not the issues. In the end, I think they are all scum-bags who don’t deserve such important positions in our government, but at the same time I realize that many people feel differently. So, I have adopted an attitude of indifference towards politicians and decide instead to focus on the individual issues.
Posted by: Zeek at May 14, 2005 12:20 PMBeagle,
Why would the second amendment be part of the “values Voters” group? Just curious as to why you pose this question.
Posted by: Tom L at May 14, 2005 12:21 PMPosted by: Richard at May 14, 2005 04:05 AM
And in that look, I saw a lot of flawed thinking. The libertarians offered nothing but angry conspiracy hounds as candidates and the liberal left offers me stuffed shirt, arrogant, botox taking, scandalmongers, who outright lie and distort the meaning of “middle America”, “The heart and soul of America”, and “Conservative values”.
I take it you found the truth about the DNC not to your liking. I do understand, I have not found anything to beleve in them for since I was 17. At that age I felt like I owed my country some service through the Military and enter it. Where upon all my “Libiral Friends” and other Libiral peopls I knew found me to not be someone they wanted around them, all I did was do what my duty called me to do, all I got from them was Spite, Hate, Names and Spit upon as a usless pice of crap who desirved to die at the hands of anyone just because I chose to serve my country and fellow American.
The DNC is one of my faverate groups to talk about as what ever it is they are putting out is so foney and fals that a blind duck with AD can spot it for what it is. So fare on this site I have been told to:
1. Keep my god and morals out of there Politics. I dont have a god, dont need one, dont want on. I do have morals. But the DNC person said the DNC governs through Social Issues and Not Morals. Just can’t understand how you can have a Social Issue without morals, that’s on the same line as govering without limits and that does sound more like Kaos, could it be that the DNC is nothing more than Soical Issue Kaos. What I have found to be true is that the DNC Rules and Controls through Social Issues while claiming not to have morals interfer with there ideals. This is done soly to keep American People under there control through Social Issues that have nothing to do with GOverment, what is best for our Country or if what they do is good for the people, just as long as it controls the people and keeps there party in power.
Stephen,
“We need better men than this in office.”
Evidently at least 52% of the voters didn’t think so in November.
Posted by: tomd at May 14, 2005 10:57 AM
No we need the one we elected, not one the DNC wants to insert in an attempt to recatch a little of there Past and Faded Fake Glory .
By that, I mean this: Bush is no good-ol-boy.
How soon we forget Gool Old Boys Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK and god help him Johnson (at least he had enough since to step out before he screwed the country up any more). Now lets not forget Carter, and Billy C, and they sure were good old boys.
He is a product of the very elitist system he uses as a scapegoat.
This would be the Elitist Good old boy system created my the DNC. But its ok for the DNC to use it, its theres. But no one else can use this Tatic and there system.
A new poll shows that nearly 60 percent of 18-39 year olds oppose private accounts.
Untrue, it ony shows how they answered the question they were asked. PLease provide us with a complete set of questions the poll asked, then we can see what the numbers really mean to us and not what someone else is using them for.
they have the gaul to turn around and try to sell the taxpayers on giving up a guaranteed Soc. Sec.
Its only Garanteed if it get’s fixed. And the present system is not a Garantee at all, my father gets just a little over $ 800.00 a month, that’s for Food Shelter, Meds. While his meds are well over $ 1,700.00 a month, but that’s ok because the DNC will insure he has the right to die and end his messarry rather than fix a broken and busted program that the DNC and FRD should of made privite from the start, but no, they would rather place the american people under there thumb for complete control. My brother, well he only gets $ 500.00 a month and that is after 4 operations on his back that has corrected nothing. Wonder how they make it from day to day, wonder what Laws they are forced to break just to get by and live. It is a way of life for them that is well below the dog food stage, thanks DNC for having such a fine and good So Si system in place for them. Now get off your A— and correct your power base of the SSA and make it something for everyone and not just to support and keep you in office.
It’s true we do need better People (not just men) in office, that’s whay everyone should vote out of office any DNC member and replace them with another party of your choice. Sometimes people just need a good slap in the face to remind them whos shoulders they are standing on. In the case of the DNC a good swift kick in the N-Ts might get throught to them.
AP,
You make some great points about the loss of support, and defeat of George H.W.Bush.
Another factor might have been his speach denounsing the NRA and resigning his membership ?
I’ve always voted values, and it has seemed that the GOP has had the canidates that most reflect my values.
This may com as a shock to a lot of you (considering my comments on other post) but if the Democrats had a canidate that came closer to my values than the Republicans I’d vote for him.
Tom L.,
I ask that question because many or most of those supporting the 2nd. amendment very strongly also fall into the “values group”, and vice versa.
It would be interesting if PEW would do another poll of only those that fall into the values group, and get their views on the 2nd amendment.
I have seen polls many yrs. ago that seemed to bear that out.
Posted by: Beagle at May 14, 2005 12:43 PMBeagle -
I honestly don’t think the 2nd amendment comes into play much at the national level any more. In 2004 (and 2000) it basically came down to this dialogue:
Bush: I’m for guns.
Gore/Kerry: Me too! Me too! Me too! Look, just cause I’m blue doesn’t mean I hate guns! I swear I won’t take your guns away! I hugged a gun today, see?
This makes for less-than-compelling politics.
Posted by: Chops at May 14, 2005 01:24 PMChops,
If it wasn’t in play, why did Kerry have to go on his phoney “goosecapade”?
Posted by: Beagle at May 14, 2005 01:58 PMUntil these polls dig deeper and provide more details no one can say with absolution that they represent the voters.
Life is much more complicated than a yes or no answer to most issues.
Some people have more than one issue that is the most important to them and are made to pick one.
Paw Paw posted about this….
the polls don’t tell the whole story and can’t possibly reflect the true views of any of us.
Dawn -
While I think the Pew Research Center should stay out of the absolution business, I agree with you to a certain degree that the electorate is incomprehensibly analog. The shortcomings of Pew’s 10-typology method emphasize this fact.
However, it’s one of the best ways we have to look at voters, and it’s far more effective than Ye Olde Spectrum, which basically lines up all 280 million of us shoulder to shoulder based on our conservatism or liberalism.
A more mathematically useful way to look at the electorate would be multidimensional mapping, and I’m sure there’s someone out there who does that kind of stuff. Unfortunately, unlike Pew, they don’t do it for the public’s own good, and political research is as jealously guarded as industrial secrets.
So we work with what we have. How else are we to understand our changing political environment?
Posted by: Chops at May 14, 2005 03:07 PMit seems that the greatest marketing accomplishment that the RNC has is the ability to frame the discussion in terms of values to begin with and as they define it (as opposed to a discussion of facts, such as trade deficits, labour markets, defense spending, education spending, and the like). The American public has always had an arms-length relationship with science and technology, and the ability to frame a discussion as one of values, as opposed to facts, appeals to the general public in a much more culturally sensitive way. Good or bad, science and reason take a back seat to the ideologies of Christian morality.
Posted by: ant at May 14, 2005 05:01 PMANT,
It would also seem that pollsters dont really want to know the facts about groups of voters that have joined with others over 2nd amendment issues.
Posted by: Beagle at May 14, 2005 07:08 PMAny idiot that belives in the Bible should be forced to live an Amish existence.
[Take your idiot remarks elsewhere - they violate our policy. WatchBlog Manager]
Posted by: liberalruledaworld at May 14, 2005 08:42 PMBefore I start, I would hope that the next time you post, you mark your quoted passages off some way. There are HTML tips on how to create these formatting differences, and they will make your words, and those that you are quoting an easier read. I prefer the blockquote tag, as it separates the quoted material in a paragraph of its own.
How many liberals begrudged folks their service in Vietnam? I don’t honestly know. Do they represent the liberal view as a whole? I don’t think so. Maybe it was popular among those whose fathers were military or pro-military, who they wanted to rebel against, but for me, the grandson of Airborne 82nd soldier who dropped into Normandy, there is no hatred. It’s a pity your friends weren’t the better kind of liberal.
They cast you as the bad guy, to their discredit.
I would ask you not to repeat their mistake with people like me. Take the chance and find out what we really believe, before you put us in the role of villains.
You’re right. Social issues do need to be moral issues, but unfortunately, the Republican party does not see it that way. I visited our nation’s capital two years ago, and with my new camera got a great deal of footage in and around those places. One particular short that I have is of the front of the federal building where the Department of Education was housed.
Little Red Schoolhouses, attached to the front of the building. I am not kidding, I have it on tape. The Case for War. Information put in there, no matter how many good analysts said it was bullhockey. I don’t mind good wars, I mind people who lie to me to get a war. I mind people who vilify my party as collaborators at a time where we still raw from 9/11. I mean, you want to know why we got strong feelings against the man? Well, it’s plain. You know the feeling. You think you’re doing right, you know you’re good in your heart, you know you want your country’s enemies to go down in flames and some jackass spits on you to further his own political agenda.
Then, having spit on you, he tells you there’s this big damn threat out there, that’ll make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. He gives you this scary evidence to get you past your skepticism, we invade-
And not only does he not find what he said was there, not only does he screw up the occupation, but it turns out that the scary evidence was total and utter bullshit. Then he starts saying the purpose of the occupation was the purpose of the whole war, so supporting that occupation means having to support him.
You know, the fellow who beat you down to get more of his people elected, who either lied to you or didn’t know what he was talking about when he told you there was a threat out there, and who sent our soldiers to battle without the numbers or resources to fight it right. You wonder that our feelings are strong against him? How can they not be, if red blood runs in our veins. We not only got beat, we had to watch things go wrong under the mandate he gained at our expense.
I think Johnson was a good ole boy, actually. He was of that system. He wasn’t born poor, but he was born Texan, and if you’ve heard anything of his manners, you’d know he wasn’t raised by any follower of the east coast. Truman isn’t that far off either, as he grew up on a farm, if my recollection’s correct. The rest, though, are as you say. I do have to make an important observation, though. Wilson, FDR, and JFK never cast themselves as being anything but the elites they were- elites who had a sense of social obligation, but still elites.
Now, I must contradict you on the point concerning who constituted and who still constitutes this system. The East Coast Establishment has more than its share of Republicans in its ranks. Bush and his father are two examples. There are plenty more where that came from. East Coast Elite has been taken to be a synonym for Democratic leadership, but such appearances are deceptive.
Truth is, Neither party is without its base of moneyed elites. The sooner realize that, the sooner you can step back from this critique and see the manipulation there.
As for Social security, The system will be solvent more than four decades into the future as it is now, under very pessimistic forecasts-
Yeah, that’s one of the things he forgets to say. The actuaries doing the accounting gave him a range of options. His forecast requires a lot of crap to go wrong between now and later for the system to be unable to cover full benefits.
Another thing he forgot to tell you. However much he insists on his privatizing, it doesn’t affect solvency. He’s using the same sort of persuasion by association that he used to sell the idea that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Truth is, though, he’s been forced to admit the privatizing does nothing to solve the problem of solvency.
He doesn’t mention this, especially when others mention the Two trillion dollar price tag. Calling it privatization is somewhat deceptive, because it will still be run by a rather expensive new government bureacracy.
All this expense for privatization, and it won’t make a difference in how much your brother gets. The truth is, the retirement and disability sides of this equation are run from different systems, which the privatization will not reach.
In the meantime, a deficit looms with medicare, and your president just added an overprice drug benefit to the bargain, where Bush specifically outlawed medicare bargaining for cheaper drugs, despite the fact the taxpayers will be paying billions for the whole deal.
I think we’re already getting a swift kick to the nuts here, we’re just numbed from the number of kicks we’ve gotten. This kind of B.S. is what I mean when I say we need better men than this in office.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2005 10:08 PMLiberalrujleaworld,
I consider myslef liberal leaning. I strongly believe in the bible. I also feel shame that a group calling themselves the “religious” right (and meaning that in a christian sense) can get together as much enthusiasm, money, volunteers, and support for something as ridiculous as politics. This, while we can’t get enough support for most of our missionaries and doctors who are working not only in the inner city but in third world countries. The christian peoples are the body of Christ, in our belief. It is our mission to both spread the Good News and serve.
If only as much enthusiasm, support, time, and money were made available out of the Love of Christ for the things you mentioned as well as others, many of the changes that are being attempted to be made politically would have already been made through Love and Charity. Christianity, although not tolerant, should change the world through the Love of Christ. This is done in the way we live, through example and service.
I am ashamed that I don’t do enough on my part and for this I publically apologize and will do the best I can to change that. As far as the religious right….we will probably see their money and time and enthusiasm again during the next election.
Disclaimer: I know many that are part of this group that do great things. I do not intend to paint everyone with such a broad brush. However, just think…if as much support and excitement were poured into teaching children in third world countries how to read, or a trade, or even spreading the gospel in the inner cities, and supporting drug rehabilitation programs…well, I suppose it could be summed up by say, “by showing God’s Love to the world”?
If we want to change the country, we should do it one heart at a time. Not as much by what we say, rather, what we do and how we act.
Posted by: Tom L at May 14, 2005 10:10 PMliberalruledaworld,
I couldn’t help but laugh at your post. I’ve always associated my liberal beliefs with a distinct belief of tolerance. I’m sure you’re talking about organized religion and not the faith itself. Your argument sounds like a mixture of Marx’s “opium of the people” and Ayn Rand’s “Attilas and Witchdoctors”. Pretty funny combination.
Posted by: Ryan at May 14, 2005 10:23 PMliberalruledaworld said: “Any idiot that belives in the Bible should be forced to live an Amish existence.
What type of God would allow you idiots to prosper and be healthy while you turn the other cheek as kids starve and are exploited all over the world.
[Rest of ‘idiot’ referenced comment deleted- take you idiot remarks somewhere else, our policy does not permit them here. WatchBlog Manager]
Posted by: Richard at May 15, 2005 12:05 AMBert - That’s the “great thing” about Disaffected. They don’t care. They don’t write letters to senators, or even read in the paper what the senators are doing. Bush got them to show up and punch his ticket on the Big Day, and they’ve gone into political hybernation for another 4 years.
What I think you’re saying here Chops, is that the ‘Disaffected Voter’ only expresses its disaffection on Election Day. Which would be an inaccurate assumption born out of willful ignorance.
Meaning, I cannot count any of those Pennsylvanians who hassled and badgered Rick Santorum at his Townhall meeting on Social Security?
I cannot count the betrayed corn farmer in South Dakota and the tobacco farmer in Louisiana, discovering subsidies cut in the Bush budget?
And, I cannot count as a ‘Disaffected Voter’ anyone who has expressed outrage to a pollster over rising gas prices, and disapproval of Bush’s job on the economy and Iraq?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at May 15, 2005 06:20 AMA gay marriage ban, legally vote in by 70% of the voters in that state, was proclaimed void by a liberal judge because he didn’t like it.
Many of those votes came from Democrats, I wonder if things like this are pushing more into the values group?
With the fight brewing in the Senate over judges, that clever move was like giving the Rep.’s more ammo and slashing your own throat in one fell swoop.
Concerning polls.
If I were attending an AZ Diamondbacks baseball game and a pollster came down the aisle and asked, “Are you a Diamondbacks fan?”, and I responded in the negative the pollster would then say I was a fan of the other team. If I were a fan of a team not in presence that day. The pollster would be in error. There are many people who attend sporting events that are not fans of either team participating that day. That is true of the political pollsters. They ask questions that drive the answers. Therefore, the pollsters are not reliable for clear data.
And, what’s the reason for so many dissaffected voters? The numbers of dissaffected become increasingly larger as government becomes increasingly uncontrollable.
The government has a web page about , but it’s just lip-service.
Because, it doesn’t tell you how to do it. Not really.
Government will not reform itself. Voters must start doing something a little different. Rather than despair, and whine, and complain, and get sucked into the great distraction of petty partisan politics, we could simple solution to voters that is: easy to understand, easy to peacefully implement, wisely uses the one thing each voter already has, which is already within the existing voting system, and costs nothing: their vote
But, we must treat Congress and the Executive branch as one entity (afterall, it is THE government).
So, if you feel dissaffected, like your vote is wasted, you have crappy choices, or it’s just a big waste of time, then consider One Simple Idea to force (peacefully) government to implement a few much needed reforms.
Posted by: One Simple Idea For Transparency and Accountability... at May 15, 2005 03:59 PMBert & One Simple Idea:
I think you’re both confusing the label “Disaffected” with the description ‘disaffected’. Pew chose that label to describe a group of people. Not all people who are disaffected fall into that category. In fact, the most disaffected folks in America fall into their “bystander” category, who are essentially non-voters.
Check out Pew’s report. Here’s part of it:
Despite personal financial strain  and belief that success is mostly beyond a person’s control  Disaffecteds are only moderate supporters of government welfare and assistance to the poor. Strongly oppose immigration as well as regulatory and environmental policies on the grounds that government is ineffective and such measures cost jobs.Posted by: Chops at May 15, 2005 06:20 PM
Values, Morals, Scruples. They all convey a set of limits for a person to live by or within, that limit is up to each person, unless that limit is outside the mainstream limits of American but the mainstream set of those limits are set by Americans. The DNC may not like it, but right now it is outside of the American people’s limits and is being rejected as something we do not want. Most any fool knows you can only roll down hill so far before you have to get off you duff and stagger back up hill. I just hope the DNC does not make the mistake of finding out that every Valley has even a lower side to roll down too. We know this to be true, it’s been a long hard haul back up for us and we will not just up and give in for nothing. You see we believe in our People, our Country, Our Ideals, Our Programs and our Platform. It’s not that you don’t feel the same way about your party, country and people; it’s just more on the line that the American People don’t feel the same way about you and your complete lack of a platform.
Posted by: Paw Paw at May 15, 2005 07:40 PMDemocrats have an excellent platform and a defining set of legislation that was introduced this year.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 16, 2005 12:15 PMAP
Pretty naked DNC pumping there. I don’t think Paw Paw is going to read either document in detail, for some reason.
Chops
What wasn’t mentioned is the “economic ignorant” vote driven by the idea that the rich are an oppressed class in this country. This idea of the rich as victims of the tax system can be coupled with the odd belief by over 20% of the population that they are in the top 5% of income in the country and the equally odd belief by another 20% or so that they will be some day (both according to a poll taken a couple of years ago), and you have a very large plurality mistakenly identifying with the very wealthy. This latter group clearly believes in the American dream and it is a touching belief, but I think the Republican party and its very wealthiest adherents have exploited both groups for their own political and economic gain. However, a coalition built on deception can’t last, anymore than one built on bringing together nutcases that don’t want evolution taught in school and fiscal conservatives that want to see efficient and effective use of taxpayer money.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 16, 2005 02:10 PMMental Wimp,
“However, a coalition built on deception can’t last, anymore than one built on bringing together nutcases that don’t want evolution taught in school and fiscal conservatives that want to see efficient and effective use of taxpayer money.”
True, but consider this: they don’t need forever to make significant changes to our government, our lives, and our country. A lot of damage can be done before people “come to their senses.”
Posted by: Zeek at May 16, 2005 10:40 PMI checked out AP’s link to the DNC platform and their “to do” list.
Both of them still have banning guns as one of their goals.
You would think they would remove that albatross, but they just cant let it go.
Beagle, there is not a single mention of guns in the legislation. I assume you didn’t even look, and that you’re talking about this one sentence from the DNC platform,
We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.
Which part do you disagree with? Do you think we should put guns in the hands of criminals and terrorists? Do ID checks everywhere BUT gun shows? Do you really need the bayonette attachment for the assault rifle that was otherwise legal under the ban? :)
Seriously, Beagle. Nobody is going to take away our guns (I assume you’re also a gun owner).
In any case, out of one long party platform and ten pieces of legislation, I think Democrats are on the right track if you could only find that one single sentence with which to disagree.
Posted by: American Pundit at May 17, 2005 10:21 AMAP,
I did read it, and they still call for banning guns!
“and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.”
The problem is, the left wants to call a “gun show” as anytime more that two persons are viewing more than two guns that are for sale.
That would ban the private sale of firearms.
Any licensed gun dealer at a “real” gun show already has to do the instant background checks.
It takes less that 2 min.’s for them to do that on the phone.
The so called? assult weapons ban was a farce, they can’t even define what one is in a way that wouldn’t ban common hunting and shooting firearms, and when the bill came back up they wanted to add more to it!
President Bush said that if it was renewed in congress, and sent to him “without adding anything extra” he would sign it.
The left will never stop untill they can ban all guns for private citizens.
Barbra Boxer has stated that as her goal, on national TV, The UN states that as their goal, if the DNC would just come out and admit that its their goal also, I would respect them more for being honest about it.
Claiming to defend the 2nd. amendment, then at every chance they get, trying to define it as meaning the right of the national guard to be armed is laughable.
The charade is over, nobody belives them anymore about that issue, it has cost them millions of votes, they just wont let it go.
BTW, there are several “single” issues that will cause voters to turn away from a political party.
beagle,
I did read it, and they still call for banning guns!‘and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.’
The way you say it makes it seem as though the DNC is trying to ban ALL guns. Well, they’re not as you can clearly see from the quote… So what exactly is your beef?
Posted by: Zeek at May 17, 2005 04:56 PMZeek,
My beef would be a holstein/angus cross, tall and meaty, but thats a lil off topic.
The DNC , or anyone else for that matter, can put anything they wish into print, but they will always be judged on their actions, or the actions of their leadership.
Posted by: Beagle at May 17, 2005 05:50 PMBeagle,
“The DNC , or anyone else for that matter, can put anything they wish into print, but they will always be judged on their actions, or the actions of their leadership.”
Ok, well in that case, what actions are you judging them on?
Posted by: Zeek at May 17, 2005 11:03 PM
