The Values-Vote Myth

[Rudey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/op...rint&position=

November 6, 2004


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.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Rudey
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?

That right there is how I see it.

[AppleDeltaPie]

beautiful post.

[sugar and spice]

I think they're getting "fundamentalists" mixed up with Christians in general. While it's true that the percentage of evangelicals didn't change, that doesn't mean that the percentage of people who are identifying more closely with Christianity -- and its, uh, values -- didn't change.

I've been to a couple recent talks on religion and they all say that the US in the midst of a major religious revival right now, and that the number of people who identify with a religion (mostly Christianity but not entirely) has jumped in recent years -- but especially since 9/11, not surprisingly.

You can't make the assumption that just because the guy made gains in, say, Massachusetts, that they weren't based at least partially on religious beliefs. It's not like Massachusetts has no Christians in it.

Now, I do think that people need to take a look at the religion factor because that obviously ISN'T all that's going on, and as I've been discussing on a number of discussion boards, the point about treating Red America like idiots is a valid one. People don't want to vote for a party that condescends to them.

But religion is a major factor, one that I don't think should be overlooked or downplayed.

[James]

I would never call them "idiots" Sugar and spice, I would just refer to them as" those that adore high school football and view Nascar as a major sport. "

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I think they're getting "fundamentalists" mixed up with Christians in general. While it's true that the percentage of evangelicals didn't change, that doesn't mean that the percentage of people who are identifying more closely with Christianity -- and its, uh, values -- didn't change.

I've been to a couple recent talks on religion and they all say that the US in the midst of a major religious revival right now, and that the number of people who identify with a religion (mostly Christianity but not entirely) has jumped in recent years -- but especially since 9/11, not surprisingly.

You can't make the assumption that just because the guy made gains in, say, Massachusetts, that they weren't based at least partially on religious beliefs. It's not like Massachusetts has no Christians in it.

Now, I do think that people need to take a look at the religion factor because that obviously ISN'T all that's going on, and as I've been discussing on a number of discussion boards, the point about treating Red America like idiots is a valid one. People don't want to vote for a party that condescends to them.

But religion is a major factor, one that I don't think should be overlooked or downplayed.

[sugar and spice]

LOL.

Also -- I was coming back to edit my post but since you'd already replied and quoted it, I'll just do a new one. I think it's really hard to say that religion wasn't an issue in this election when the we've got polls saying that the single biggest indication of who you voted for was church attendance -- those who attend weekly/regularly voting for Bush, those who attend less regularly or not at all voting for Kerry.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by Rudey
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/op...rint&position=

November 6, 2004


The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

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.

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.

(snip)

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?

The first few responses to this article are proof positive that most of you didn't get it. To make it easier to understand, I've left out where it says that religion had the same appeal in 2004 as in 2000.

I'll be the first to say that I voted my convictions in 2004, but I also did in 2000. It is nothing new!!

And even though the thread has been deleted, James, you said that you'll (I assume the plural you) love me, even if Bush wins.

[AGDee]

I agree that it is nothing new. Bush ran on the "family values" platform in 2000 and succeeded.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I think they're getting "fundamentalists" mixed up with Christians in general. While it's true that the percentage of evangelicals didn't change, that doesn't mean that the percentage of people who are identifying more closely with Christianity -- and its, uh, values -- didn't change.

You have any statistics to back that up? Also, are you implying that the percentage of non-fundamentalist Christians declined? Can you back that up? I didn't think so.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
I've been to a couple recent talks on religion and they all say that the US in the midst of a major religious revival right now, and that the number of people who identify with a religion (mostly Christianity but not entirely) has jumped in recent years -- but especially since 9/11, not surprisingly.

Who are "they" and what is their methodology for determining this? Please provide an internet link that expounds on this.

Originally posted by sugar and spice
But religion is a major factor, one that I don't think should be overlooked or downplayed.

I disagree with religion being a major factor. The economy was too weak for a Bush landslide, but too strong for an incumbent to lose, and that's the major factor. Anything else is just a peripheral part of a discussion about presidential electotral politics.

[sugar and spice]

Come on. There is almost NOBODY claiming they voted on the economy in this election. Give me some statistics to back up YOUR claims on that.


One of the lectures was by Karen Armstrong, who cited someone I can't remember for her statistics. If you really want to know methodology/etc., feel free to do a search yourself. As I sometimes get my information other places than the internet, I can't tell you off the top of my head who she gets her facts from. She has studied religion more than almost anyone in the world, however, so I was willing to take her statement at face value, especially since it's been backed up by other books I've read, knowledgeable people I've spoken with, and personal experience. A quick search on google finds everyone from Harvard professors to Religious Right nutcases in agreement.


And no, actually, I was saying that the number of non-fundie Christians has increased, not declined. Which is usually what happens during a "religious revival."

[AGDee]

From CNN's exit polls:

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE BUSH KERRY

Taxes (5%) 57% 43%

Education (4%) 26% 73%

Iraq (15%) 26% 73%

Terrorism (19%) 86% 14%

Economy/Jobs (20%) 18% 80%

Moral Values (22%) 80% 18%

Health Care (8%) 23% 77%


So, for the 20% who identified the Economy as the main issue, 80% of them voted for Kerry.

Terrorism and Moral Values went to Bush. Those were the top 3 issues identified.

As for liberals being close minded, I disagree. The liberals are "live and let live" socially. If you want to be part of the religious right, that's great. Nobody is going to force you to marry a gay person, get divorced, use birth control, get an abortion or stop praying wherever and whenever you want. The only thing the liberals ask is that the conservatives don't make their religious convictions law and force them on others.

Dee

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by AGDee


As for liberals being close minded, I disagree. The liberals are "live and let live" socially. If you want to be part of the religious right, that's great. Nobody is going to force you to marry a gay person, get divorced, use birth control, get an abortion or stop praying wherever and whenever you want. The only thing the liberals ask is that the conservatives don't make their religious convictions law and force them on others.

Dee

Again, it depends on who you talk to. There are quite a few liberals who are close-minded about their issues. You can't just sit there and say that that liberals are all "live and let live," as you say.

Now, my evidence on this is all first-hand, being a Republican in Massachusetts; the point remains though, there are close-minded people in both parties.

[Rudey]

Some of you obviously know nothing about statistics.

The numbers given were based on exit polls. These are meaningless but it is incredibly hard to measure how people voted so the media releases them. In fact I believe these exit poll numbers were released in the afternoon.

As for someone saying there is a difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists, actually the voting bloc is called evangelicals. It was Carter that mobilized them, Reagan that moved them, and later George Bush who connected with them to get his father elected and then for his own popular election. The Fourth Great Awakening by Robert Fogel talks extensively abotu the evangelical movement.

As for liberals being close minded, of course it's true. If it wasn't you wouldn't have all the Democrat strategists on television this last week talking about how the party culturally talks down to people (to be fair they said Republicans economically look down on people). That was a huge weakness for the party this year (not just Bush) and people reacted and voted.

-Rudey

[honeychile]

On exit polls: is anyone naive enough to believe that nobody lies to the person asking the question? I have to admit, I really hate to lie - REALLY hate to lie! - but if someone asked me how I just voted, I doubt very much if that I'd tell them exactly how I felt.

Are there any stats as to the accuracy of exit polls?

[Rudey]

Originally posted by honeychile
On exit polls: is anyone naive enough to believe that nobody lies to the person asking the question? I have to admit, I really hate to lie - REALLY hate to lie! - but if someone asked me how I just voted, I doubt very much if that I'd tell them exactly how I felt.

Are there any stats as to the accuracy of exit polls?

They are not accurate. They are not representative of the population even based on theory. How could they be if a busy person like myself would refuse to take it? How could it be if it's only at a certain time slot? They are media ploys.

-Rudey