Upon further review...
...we've been led off the path once again by the media as it jumped to conclusions on how big of a role "moral issues" and the evangelical turnout played in GW's re-election. Pouncing on the 22% figure from exit polls, one media voice after another has proclaimed that Bush won because he mobilized the religious Republican core who were more concerned with moral issues—as they defined them—than the war in Iraq, the economy, the environment, health care, etc. A recent op-ed piece in The New York Times written by David Brooks is the first article I've read in which someone attempts to debunk this myth (that has already seemingly become fact).
Brooks says: "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."
He continues: "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."
The problem in the exit polling that has led to the misperception is awkward wording and the use of the phrase "moral values," which as we all know can mean just about anything to just about anyone. Is the environment a moral issue? Is health care for the elderly and the poor a moral issue? Is killing thousands of innocent people in a war a moral issue? Sure. Just as abortion, gay marriage and the death-penalty are moral issues as well.
Brooks concludes that Bush won this election because he improved across the board from 2000, gaining just enough in blue states and red states, among whites and blacks and hispanics, and among churchgoers and non-religious folks alike. The Republicans flat-out beat the pants off the Democrats, by some 3.5 million votes.
Blog Donkey Rising agrees, stating that Bush's largest gains came from less-religious voters, not the Evangelical bible-thumpers we've been pointing our finger at for a few days now.
I suppose this news only serves to further frustrate disconcerted Dems (or anti-Bushies) who were looking for somewhere specific to channel their rage. But the truth appears to be that we can't really blame any group in specific for Bush's victory other than Bush's re-election party itself and the nearly 60 million Americans that voted for him. And yes, those 60 mil are a tough bunch to pigeonhole, unless you want to just lump them all under "wrong". So, instead of simply channeling all the hatred to the southern Red states, why don't we keep that ire focused directly on Bush and his administration. Lets spend some energy working to defeat Republican control of our Senate and House—and of course the White House, too—instead of berating those damn Christians and their evil ways.
It's not that there's anything wrong with venting, but the time for screaming at a wall has come and gone. Enough with the name-calling already. There's work to be done!
(For those wondering what happened to the musical focus of this blog, you can rest assured that this post signals a change in focus for myself, also. It's been difficult to focus on music as of late, what with all the anger I've released. But, I hope to get back to talking about music soon.)
Brooks says: "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."
He continues: "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."
The problem in the exit polling that has led to the misperception is awkward wording and the use of the phrase "moral values," which as we all know can mean just about anything to just about anyone. Is the environment a moral issue? Is health care for the elderly and the poor a moral issue? Is killing thousands of innocent people in a war a moral issue? Sure. Just as abortion, gay marriage and the death-penalty are moral issues as well.
Brooks concludes that Bush won this election because he improved across the board from 2000, gaining just enough in blue states and red states, among whites and blacks and hispanics, and among churchgoers and non-religious folks alike. The Republicans flat-out beat the pants off the Democrats, by some 3.5 million votes.
Blog Donkey Rising agrees, stating that Bush's largest gains came from less-religious voters, not the Evangelical bible-thumpers we've been pointing our finger at for a few days now.
I suppose this news only serves to further frustrate disconcerted Dems (or anti-Bushies) who were looking for somewhere specific to channel their rage. But the truth appears to be that we can't really blame any group in specific for Bush's victory other than Bush's re-election party itself and the nearly 60 million Americans that voted for him. And yes, those 60 mil are a tough bunch to pigeonhole, unless you want to just lump them all under "wrong". So, instead of simply channeling all the hatred to the southern Red states, why don't we keep that ire focused directly on Bush and his administration. Lets spend some energy working to defeat Republican control of our Senate and House—and of course the White House, too—instead of berating those damn Christians and their evil ways.
It's not that there's anything wrong with venting, but the time for screaming at a wall has come and gone. Enough with the name-calling already. There's work to be done!
(For those wondering what happened to the musical focus of this blog, you can rest assured that this post signals a change in focus for myself, also. It's been difficult to focus on music as of late, what with all the anger I've released. But, I hope to get back to talking about music soon.)
Just to emphasize again a point you've already made...all this "moral vote" business is based on a really poorly worded exit poll question, something to the effect of, "Do you support moral values?" Of course, everyone answered, "Yes." As David Brooks cautions (rightly so, I think), liberals cannot just believe that the religious right came out and whooped their asses in this election. The reality is far more complicated & we have to work harder to explain what happened. Right on, brother!
By 
hungrygirl, at 12:49 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By hungrygirl, at 12:50 AM
12:49 AMJust to emphasize again a point you've already made...all this "moral vote" business is based on a really poorly worded exit poll question, something to the effect of, "Do you support moral values?" Of course, everyone answered, "Yes." As David Brooks cautions (rightly so, I think), liberals cannot just believe that the religious right came out and whooped their asses in this election. The reality is far more complicated & we have to work harder to explain what happened. Right on, brother!
12:50 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.