The Values-Vote Myth

[R.A. Hettinga]

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=>

The New York Times
November 6, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to
explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it
has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they
are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

 In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie
Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of
homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George
Bush over the top.

 This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

 Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out,
there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year.
Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did
in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are
pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all
circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say
they pray daily.

 It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican,
but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us
that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over
the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday,
25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters
supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as
there is on most social issues.

 Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly
worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most
influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral
values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote
on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

 The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did
better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did
better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's
hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly
in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

 He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as
president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They
had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most
approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the
war on terror.

 The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for
Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's
policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people
with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

 The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this
week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've
spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of
words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is
no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this
week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro
forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of
dogma and reaction.

 In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within
regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex
layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism,
American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity,
natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues.

 But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the
rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and
condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why
Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university
town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red
America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely
closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

 What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually
eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are
important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of
the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The
rage of the drowning man.

-- 
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'