The people over at South Asian Magazine for Action and Reflection (SAMAR) are pretty upset by the election results to say the least. Here is an article by Vijay Prashad who is the Director of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Four years ago, Bush’s Brain Karl Rove swore that he would not rest until the four million Evangelicals who did not vote then would turn out yesterday. And they did. They came in droves. They told those who did the exit polls that the issue that brought them to the franchise was not their own unemployment or under employment, or even the loss of their family members in a war of choice. They came to vote for “moral values.”
After Rove told participants at an American Enterprise Institute seminar in 2001 that the goal of the Bush re-election campaign would be to make sure that all 19 million Evangelical Christians voted, his team hired Ralph Reed to take charge of the effort. Reed, the veteran of the Christian Coalition, mobilized his contacts and his good looks and went after the withheld votes.
I think this is going to be the chief finding when the post-mortem of this election is completed. All the issues we so vehemently debated all these months were rather irrelevant when it came down to what ended up swaying this election. Mr. Prashad makes his feelings on the subject quite clear as he ends,
Progressives are loath to offer a frontal criticism of the theocracy that has overtaken the South and the Midwest — where under the command of tolerance we have to endure the intolerance toward women and their bodies, toward gays and lesbians, towards anyone who does not fit the compass of the “moral values” mass-produced by the established churches. It is time to throw off our forbearance and open a direct debate on the suppression of rational argument in favor of theocratic bigotry.
Homophobia elected Bush. Misogyny elected Bush. Unreason elected Bush.
These are the types of comments that drive people to vote FOR Bush in some instances. By calling everyone who voted for Bush essentially a Bigot, he belittles those who voted for GW for other reasons.
Also, in progressive circles the word “Evangelical” has taken on a pretty dirty feel and look. To accuse someone of bigotry, one must throw aside your own. Chirstianity has been a part of this nation. As many in the extreme left like to say how our actions as a nation ‘Drives terrorism and fuels right wing extremism’, they fail to look at where the origins of this demographic comes from and how they have felt disenfranchised.
They did their civic duties and showed up to vote. Plain and simple. Whining and complaining will not achieve anything. The author is correct, dialouge needs to be more direct AND productive. Marginalising those who stood up for whatever their views are only further fuels a partisan atmosphere.
I attended SASA quite a few years ago and I believe Vijay Prasad was one of the speakers. Even though I do not agree with many of his positions, this article disappoints me. There is much more to the South and Midwest than “Those dumb God fearing folk” as some who don’t support Bush would like to say.
Last I checked, 59M Americans elected Bush.
Based on exit polls (yes, I recognize they are of dubious value), this would include –
As Blank says above, most “Liberals” just don’t realize how much “conservatives” hate being called “stupid” by them day in and day out. That factor alone motivates, I’m sure, a non-trivial number of protest votes.
Step 1 towards healing the nation – stop assuming that “conservatives” are stupid. Step 2 – realize that many folks fear Islamic Jihadists far more than Christian Fundamentalists.
I think you guys are misinterpreting his commentary. He doesn’t think that everyone that voted for Bush is Stupid or ignorant. He is saying that what decided and swayed the election is those people that voted for Bush for “moral reasons.” That is why he seems to end so harshly. I don’t think most progressives will find fault with those who voted for Bush because they support his way of fighting the war on terror or rebuilding the economy. Everyone has a right to their opinion. What devastates Progressives is that “Moral issues” were the deciding factor in this election.
I dunno Abhi – there ain’t much room for nuance in “Homophobia elected Bush. Misogyny elected Bush. Unreason elected Bush.”
Again, that’s a quote out of context. Read the full article. It attacks just the one issue of “moral values.” He makes that last statement within the context of the fact that what swayed the election was homophobia.
Vinod, No, the folks dont fear Islamist Jihadists. For the MAJORITY of the Republican voters, the number one issue was ‘moral values’ and not terrorism. I only wish that the moral majority actually cared more about terrorism than about Adam and Steve marrying.
I did read the whole article. I go back to the point where many of these who voted for ‘moral’ reasons did so because they DO feel disenfranchised, not well represented, and overall feel that they are not taken seriously.
They spoke with their votes and did it according to the rules in record numbers.
From the exit poll page Vinod mentioned,
I would guess that this makes the confidence intervals fairly large.
I’m sorry, I wanted to say that it would make the confidence intervals fairly small and the margin of error fairly large.
re: Homophobia & Adam/Steve marrying vs. Iraq/WoT-
FWIW, if you crunch some of the #’s from the CNN exit polls, it shows that
if you combine Iraq (12%) + Terrorism (21%) you get a score that outweighs Moral values (24%)
37% of Bush voters are in favor of either Gay Marriage or Civil Unions vs. 68% of Kerry’s (note that nearly 1/3 of Kerry’s supporters wanted zero legal recognition whatsoever)
Sounds like a gap, eh? But, let’s compare it to other “character / morality” questions like-
etc. My point here is that while I have no doubt that homophobia exists in the world (and, for that matter, that homophobics are more likely live in Red States & to have voted for Bush), I do NOT want the Left to write off the “swing” in this election to this singular issue.
It lets ’em off the hook too easily and allows them to smugly continue to ignore & condescend towards Red America rather than trying to create an earnest dialog with it….
Would these amendments to prevent gay marriage even be on the ballot if it was not for the MA Supreme Court? And if gay marriage is not the momentous change its supporters attest, then please provide a list of those Western nations which permit gay marriage.
Being someone who believes gay people should be free to pursue the agony of modern marriage, my main complaint is that the gay activists chose to ignore the concerns of the majority, and just found some liberal judges instead.
Change in some cases takes time. Trying to shove it or ram it down people when they are not ready creates a backlash at times.
Blame Gavin Newsome. Do people have the right to create a legal binding way to share property, their bank accounts, benefits, etc. Sure they do, I believe so.
However one must pic and choose their battles. In many ways as a result of the ‘civil disobedience’ by Gavin Newsome and others, you are seeing a backlash. Just because African Americans used civil disobedience successfully does not mean that same method will work for gays. Things had not reached critical mass where civil disobedience would work on a massive scale.
Every action does not have to be chest thumping in your face actions, they can be nuanced and subtle also (though that takes a measure of patience).
What the left does not see here is that just because these amendments were important to them, doesnt mean they were important to others. Many people simply don’t care enough to vote FOR it. This issue is not too important to them.
Heck, this even failed in the Pacific Northwest which is where most efforts were concentrated, NOT only the ‘red’ hilbilly states.
Blame Gavin Newsom? Are you kidding me? You’re going to force me to agree with Vinod on this one:
etc. My point here is that while I have no doubt that homophobia exists in the world (and, for that matter, that homophobics are more likely live in Red States & to have voted for Bush), I do NOT want the Left to write off the “swing” in this election to this singular issue.
I have to agree with this. And moreover, I have to say that I would rather that people stand up for what they believe in and lose (not that Kerry did that either). I don’t think same-sex marriages were expected to become such a hot button item for the elections this year, or you surely would have seen even more campaign strategizing around it. And it certainly wasn’t the only reason people voted against Kerry.
Whoever made the old remark that Democrats tend to gather into a circle when they point their guns seems frightfully right (this from a lifelong liberal Democrat).
Vinod-homophobia was a key issue for many bush supporters, not all. Did you see the numbers on the anti-gay referendums? And I agree with Prashad’s analysis the hostility among republicans toward gay people is much larger: it stems from a growing American identity formed by fear of others who are different and threaten our identity. i.e., the overbroad assertion of threatening Muslims (approving the mandate to lock thousands of them up in gtmo, us prisons withotu charges; assaulting prisoners in abu graibh; engaging in a war based on lies), the threatening right of women controlling their bodies, the threatening right of minorities to be educated. Isn’t there a common theme?
I’m not saying everyone who is a Republican is a fundamentalist Christian or not intelligent or fearful. But we can’t deny with Reed at the helm of a major part of the republican base, that the foundation for the republican platform is fundamentalist christian values. And some of those values, as Prashad wrote, resonate with Americans who are afraid of losing their identity and power. (Except, of course, New Yorkers and DC’ers, who were the people who suffer the attacks.)
Although I think that evangelicals came to the polls to knock down this referendum, I disagree with KXB and others who argue that the dems lost because gay people fought to be able to have the right to be married. First, this is not like the nader issue-it is a core democratic principle of equality: gay marriage legitimized relationships that had been invalidated by the mainstream for so long in this country. The people who brought that suit, the thousands who were married because of the activism that followed in the courts, should be hailed and respected. Would we ever say let’s hold off on challenging racial segregation in the courts because theres an election coming up?
Instead, I think this issue illustrates the larger problem with the DNC. While I give props to the awesome organizers who have been working around the clock for years, as a party it has not worked as closely with the grassroots to engage on difficult issues, develop core themes, elect local officials. On this particular issue, the dems did not undertake a campaign to discuss how respecting gay rights is compatible with morality, with their morality. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. How did we from a country where the majority supported slavery, disenfranchisement of women and minority’s right to work and segregation, to the country we are today?
Blame Gavin Newsome: Ok, that comment was a little too simple, but that is where the political seed of this issue got planted at in context to these elections. It was a very poorly thought out strategy to push for the rights of gays the way he and some others did. Some folks in the Gay community who did not get caught up in the hoopla came out and said the same thing. Just because there is a popular movement for it in San Francisco and some other towns, does not mean you will have a national populist uprising.
The courts still have their say, so the issue is not dead.
Plenty of other ways I can think of that this issue could have been approached with better chances of long term success.
“Whoever made the old remark that Democrats tend to gather into a circle when they point their guns seems frightfully right (this from a lifelong liberal Democrat).”
For these elections, this is very true. Now, I think I should step aside and let folks who can articulate thoughts much better than myself do the talking.
Ditto Vinod.
I don’t think that as a Democrat I am at all “missing the point” of what cost us the election. I am not listening to what Dems are saying, I am listening to what Republicans are saying. On NPR yesterday Gary Bauer came out and said what I now believe. Dems are out of touch with the Christian values of America. The Republicans themselves (if you turn on any news program) are the ones saying that Dems lost because of our stand on gay rights and abortion. I think fiscally conservative but socially liberal Republicans are going to soon face this problem coming at them from behind. I can only “pray” for a party split.
This is my whole point. You guys are making an assertion cuz it makes you feel better about why the Dem’s lost (in this case, “cuz Republicans are homophobes like Red America!”).
But the statistics (well, at least the CNN ones above) do NOT bear this out. Do you have counter statistics?
If homophobia was the divisive issue your argument needs for it to be, then the split b/t Kerry & Bush should be 80:20 or 90:10. (e.g. more like the “who’s more honest” stats above, which IMHO, feels like the far more divisive question)
Instead, 68% of Kerry voters & 37% of bush voters support additional rights. AND, a full 30% of KERRY supporters are against any gay marriage / union rights whatsoever.
Rights for Gays are an issue, for sure, but they are an orthogonal one to the question you + Prashad are trying to answer – namely Why did Kerry lose? More than a few Dems voted in favor of the Marriage referendums.
Until Prashad & the rest of the Left stop answering this question with an underlying conceit of “Red America just isn’t as enlightened as we are yet…” they’ll continue to draw scorn and impede dialog.
Here are the numbers Vinod for the question in your last comment.
50% of the people thought that Abortion should be either Always Illegal or Mostly Illegal; 80% of them voted for President Bush.
48% of the people thought that same-sex couple should have No Legal Recognition; 72% of them voted for President Bush.
This shows that on the two above mentioned issues, the people are split down the center and of those who are against the issues, a overwhelming majority (~75%) voted for President Bush.
You also said,
I could not find this anywhere in the CNN polls. Could you point me to it?
Vinod, you also say,
If you are sourcing this from the CNN poll, I would have to disagree with your assessment. take for example the question of honesty. You imply that 80% of the people thought that Bush was more honest. The CNN Polly does not show that anywhere. All it says is that of the people who considered Honesty as the Most Important Quality (12% of the electorate), 80% voted for President Bush.
This clearly does not mean that 80% of the electorate thought that Bush was more honest.
The same applies for the other qualities you mention.
Anji,
Gays fighting for their rights was not the problem, but the manner in which they did it. To repeat, if gays sat down at a negotiating table in a legislature, or ran for office to promote this issue – there would not be the reaction from straight people that you saw. But when you decide to find a friendly judge, who will overturn law and tradition, with flimsly legal foundation, that is what pushed straight people from just being uncertain about gay marriage to becoming hostile, specifically to the manner in which it was pursued.
When CA state law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and the mayor of SF decides that law is not worth observing, it’s difficult to take activists seriously.
The comparison to the civil rights movement does not hold up. While initial efforts were focused on the courts, they understood for the reforms to become permanent, they had to be enshrined in federal law, binding on all the states. That way you avoid haphazard, state-by-state efforts. So, the lobbied hard for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 – which a majority of Republicans voted in favor of, while a majority of Democrats opposed it.
While gay marriage may be a worthwhile goal, to simply disregard centuries of tradition and legal precedent because it is no longer fashionable is not the way to win support.
And I’ll ask again, if gay marriage is no big deal, then why have our more enlightened European friends (not burdened by excessive religiousity) not already allowed it?
I don’t think that as a Democrat I am at all “missing the point” of what cost us the election. I am not listening to what Dems are saying, I am listening to what Republicans are saying.
Right on Abhi. I spent the morning listening to KCBI, a conservative, Christian radio station. (and they said that I’m a stereotypical liberal and not interested in what the other side has to say!) Over and over, I heard the same things. From the on-air personalities. From James Dobson. From Dennis Prager, whose show was partially broadcast this morning and who is not necessarily labeled a Christian broadcaster.
It was not talking about the myriad of reasons to vote Bush. It was not talking economics or terrorism. It was talking one thing: Moral values. Shame on Michael Moore. Shame on Al Franken. Shame on MTV. They are bad and promote wrong values. Yay for gay marriage bans. Yay for four more years of a Godly man in the white house. Yay for conservative Supreme Court Justice appointments. Roe v. Wade was mentioned once, and you know just how.
There were same-sex marriage referendums on the ballot in eleven states. Do not tell me that is a coincidence, not a measure to get evangelicals to the polls. I am aghast that this is what it took – a chance to affirm that not everyone has the same rights – to ensure that the Republicans stayed in power.
But good for them for actually coming out and voting, although I do not agree with them.
Omair – do you read this? Now do you know why I told you to leave and go vote? Did you? If not, do you see why you should have ?
I am not losing faith entirely, but I seriously doubt I will ever vote Democrat again, until the party gets their act together. I’ll vote Libertarian and hope the third-party can actually get some respect, but I cannot vote for a Republican party that is run by a neocolonialist faction (go to my website if you’re blinking in surprise at that)or a Democratic party that fumbles around in the dark, pretending they are a legitimate alternative to the machine the conservatives have been building for the past thirty years.
Wonder what Colin Powell is up to ….. ?????
From CNN: Netherlands: Gay marriages allowed since 2001 Belgium: Gay marriages allowed since 2003 Sweden: Civil unions giving gay people the same rights as married couples, since 1994
Spain has approved a bill that will legalize same-sex marriages on the same level as opposite-sex as of October 1, 2004.
France and Britain have both considered allowing it, but with little success as of yet.
So Europe is indeed on its way to recognizing gay marriage. Of course, the marriage rate in Europe was already quite low even before the idea was in most (straight) people’s heads. There’s a lot more cohabitation and less traditional marriage.
Andrea,
Considering that Europe is composed of 49 nations, that two nations with a combined population less than California allow gay marriage is not trend-setting. As you point point out, those countries are generally lacking in religion and cohabitation sometimes exceeds marriage. But that is their country, and they have decided that works for them. Although given their declining birthrates and rising pension obligations, it may not be working that well.
But the point is that people should be allowed a say when there is a major change like this. Gay activists did not want the people to have a say in the matter. Whether we are comfortable with it or not, America is a nation that prides itself on a vibrant religious life. A judge waving his gavel will not change that.
And yet, Bush got 20% of the Gay vote, same as last time.
And that’s despite running a homophobic grassroots effort in those same parts of the country.
Interestingly, Kerry staked his campaign on a matter of principle:
In the end, even for the Gay community, it is clear that race trumped sexual orientation. They were more afraid of me than Bush.
It’s hard to be sympathetic to evangelicals when they say things like this:
Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America, one of many conservative groups eager yesterday to talk about the ramifications of morality-based politics, cast the presidential results in stark political terms.
“The real issue at play is whether there is absolute truth or there isn’t,” she asserted. “That’s the dividing line in America.”
So, polls indicate that the majority of Republicans are homophobic. Some dems are. But the point is not some “easy answer” as much as it is figuring out what issues make this country is so divided. Tom Friedman gave props to that idea in his unusually good column.
Besides, if it was a democratic regime that presided over a completely uncessary war, increased the number of terrorists targeting america after a major attack on 9/11 (according to the WSJ), was responsible for the gross sexual and inhumane humiliation of arab “prisoners” and drove our country deeper into debt and unemployment the republicans would be like how could we possibly lose?
vinod, if you agree that theses statements are true, than you must understand why any opposing party must ask how the dems could lose. is it self-righteous? of course. but so is the right. the questions is what values cross over and have currency in america, why and why that person voted for bush. no one, clearly, wants innocent people to die for any reason.
kxb-the civil rights movement brought monumental court cases after monumental court cases to push forward this country’s law in completely conservative regimes, apart from democratic strategy makers because the dems werent necessarily listening to them at the time. putting these issues on the tablegave the right the opportunity to mobilize around on and get the vote out around intolerance and ego self preservation during difficult economic times. i wouldnt be surprised that the left’s court victories against mccarthyism in the mid 50s pushed the country to vote again for eisenhower.
but again those people would have voted for eisenhower anyway.
So, polls indicate that the majority of Republicans are homophobic. Some dems are. But the point is not some “easy answer” as much as it is figuring out what issues make this country is so divided. Tom Friedman gave props to that idea in his unusually good column.
Besides, if it was a democratic regime that presided over a completely uncessary war, increased the number of terrorists targeting america after a major attack on 9/11 (according to the WSJ), was responsible for the gross sexual and inhumane humiliation of arab “prisoners” and drove our country deeper into debt and unemployment the republicans would be like how could we possibly lose?
vinod, if you agree that theses statements are true, than you must understand why any opposing party must ask how the dems could lose. is it self-righteous? of course. but so is the right. the questions is what values cross over and have currency in america, why and why that person voted for bush. most people dont want innocent people to die for any reason.
kxb-the civil rights movement brought court cases after court cases to push forward this country’s law in completely conservative regimes, apart from democratic strategy because the dems werent necessarily listening to them at the time. putting these issues on the tablegave the right the opportunity to mobilize around on and get the vote out around intolerance and ego self preservation during difficult economic times. i wouldnt be surprised that the left’s court victories against mccarthyism in the mid 50s pushed the country to vote again for eisenhower.
but again those people would have voted for eisenhower anyway.
Much like the “Liberal” straw man became more of a dirty word? Why is it that it was bad to be supposedly the No. 1 and No. 4 Liberal in the Senate, yet it wasn’t bad to be the No. 1 and No. 2 conservative? Your right that the current conservative movement has it’s roots in the counter culture movement of the sixties and anger from it, and the downfall of Nixon. But the ‘bigotry’ you ask ‘progressives’ to deal with, are easily and handily embraced/espoused by the current leadership of conservatives.
Vinod, did you skip the 90s? This goes back to my posting on John Stossel, and so many other people that are considered the purveyors of legitimate dialog. Just look at the demagogic rantings and ravings that have gone on over the past 10-15 years. Where was the earnest dialog? Am I just blaming the people that were producing? No. I am also blaming American who don’t care to take the time to really read and explore what’s going on; even you and GC went crazy over Arudhati Roy, and you pulled out the ‘Bush=Hitler’ fallacy that had been pushed heavily in the media. I’ve noticed this with my own parents who are intelligent, but have been completely brainwashed by the so called ‘pundits’ on tv. I can’t have any rational discussion of any sort with them – all I hear is the parroting of the ‘talking points’, such as the ‘Global test’ phrase.
So, KXB, if fighting for your rights is annoying a lot people, it’s wrong to pursue it? Gee I’m glad some people did, so I can enjoy my MTv.
Blank, isn’t this just everything that you see from so many of the extreme right everyday on TV or hear on the Radio? When would people be ready if isn’t brought up, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 years? Everyone seems to be asking that nuanced dialog seems to be needed, but isn’t the very idea of that mocked by the right on daily basis for so many years now? Also, Vinod and others have said that left thinks of the people who voted for these measures as stupid. Well don’t those who have pandered to their fears done the same thing? What’s worse thinking they are stupid, or using their fear to push an for your agenda?
KXB, are you saying that as long as gays are quiet and willing to work quietly within they legal system, it’s ok? What if the legal system is stacked against gaining your rights, then what do you do? If you follow this link it’s to website from Manish’s website, that was documentary about the Punjabi immigrants in California that had to marry Mexican women because US Laws at the time prohibited bringing wives from India. Centuries of tradition? Obvisiouly your not a student of history. I’m assuming your talking about the tradition of marriage being between men and women. The greeks at one point believed that only true love could be between men. Just because their traditions mean their right…traditionally women were second class, considered subservient, couldn’t own, couldn’t wear pants, couldn’t vote, couldn’t hold office, couldn’t be doctors, not only were inter-racial marriages frowned upon but there were laws still in place upto the mid-70s in many states…just because a majority are uncomfortable with being challenged, doesn’t mean that challenge shouldn’t be made.
As much Vinod, Blank, and KXB would like to argue that “Liberals” are denigrating towards the religious conservative, you cannot deny that this current administration used the fear’s and hatred’s of those people to gain power. And, no, I’m not stating that the Dem’s are neccessarily the ‘paragons of virtue’ — Kerry used fear of economic problems and terrorism as well. But if you want a real dialog, you need force the current pundit-ocracy press corp of chaning it’s behavior and not pandering to the lowest talking point tactics.
Vinod wrote: “Last I checked, 59M Americans elected Bush. Based on exit polls (yes, I recognize they are of dubious value), this would include – – 32% of the Gay vote – 54% of the Female vote – 58% of folks with College degrees.”
You reference the 59M votes Nationwide and then cite Exit Polls from the South..? Higher rates are to be expected — Mr. Prashad would argue that your data translates to Bush support from: – 32% of Gay Theocratic-Moralists – 54% of Female Theocratic-Moralists – 58% of College-Educated Theocratic-Moralists As opposed to National Exit Poll Results: – 23% of Gay Americans (vs Kerry 77% – 48% of Female Americans (vs Kerry 51% – 49% of College-Educated Americans (vs Kerry 49% – 44% of Post-Grad-Educated Americans (vs Kerry 55%
Other potential points of note (from National Exit Polls) on the Bush=noneducated/moral/family-values argument- Bush elected by: – 91% of those who said “Religious Faith” is the Most Important Quality of a President – 80% of those who ranked “Moral Values” as the Most Important Issue – 24% of those who said “Cares About People” is the Most Important Quality of a President – 18% of those who ranked “Economy/Jobs” as the Most Important Issue, 26%/Education, 23%/Health Care – 59% of Protestants, 52% of Catholics vs. 27% of “Others” – 64% of Americans who attend Church More than Weekly, 58%/Weekly, 50%/Monthly, 45%/a few times a year – 36% of Americans who never attend Church – 70% of Protestant/Weekly Church-goers – 40% of the Non-married – 11% of those who say Iraq War is NOT part of the War on Terrorism – 63% of gun-owners
To supplement Mr. Prashad’s argument, using the Exit Poll Data: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
BUSH ~”Moral Values” was the MOST common answer to “Most Important Issue” question (22%), and 80% of the people who answered as such voted Bush. “War on Terrorism” was also a high-ranked issue (19%), and 86% of THOSE people voted for Bush. Bush represents the CLEAR, STRONG, Moral, Fundamentalist Righteous Indignation of “Kill the terrorists now”. ~Similarly, 55% of Voters decided that the IRAQ WAR (despite the evidence of Qaeda’s network elsewhere, and no WMD’s, etc) is a part of the “War on Terrorism”, and 81% of THOSE people voted Bush. Bush represents: “I will kill and subjugate the Muslims who have oil and who probably might possibly be terrorists at some point, and I will conflate this with 9/11, and finally I will do next to nothing about catching Al Qaeda & the terrorist network that attacked us and is acutally capable of attacking us.”
KERRY ~Other voters chose “Iraq” as the primary concern (15%) instead of “War on Terrorism”, and 73% of THOSE people voted Kerry (Bush voters deny that there is a substantive distinction between “Ware on Terrorism” and “Iraq War”). Furthermore, 42% of Voters said Iraq was not part of the War on Terror, and 88% of these people voted Kerry. Kerry represents the Moral Value of “Iraq was the Wrong War at the Wrong Time on the Wrong People”. These voters didn’t buy Bush claiming the MORAL high ground, as he talked about “flip-flopper” Kerry sending “wrong messages” to troops, to the “enemy”, “Iraq is terrorism and I’m not afraid to Kill Terrorists”.
So 22% said they voted on moral values. Wow. That sure is a big number. Did the pollsters ask what those ‘moral issues’ were? No. And Vinod is right. If you look carefully at the CNN.com poll, the plurality of even Bush voters would be ok with civil unions, just not gay marriage. Still. The majority of people who voted for Bush voted for him for other reasons: 86% of those 19% who said terrorism, 25% of those who 19% who said Iraq and so on and so on.
But keep going. Look. I favor gay marriage. But if you want to stay a minority party for a long, long time, this is the way to do it. To insult the people you should be trying to convince.
Oh lord. I should learn to preview. Just read the poll yourselves 🙂
My point stands. Disparaging people is no way to win votes.
Darwinian philosophy tells us that after a shock (attack, threat etc), we are instinctively thrown into self preservation mode. So, as the elections have just passed, I have had to examine closely and (very) selfishly how I might make out during the next 4 year term.
Abortion Ban: IÂ’m male, donÂ’t need one. If a dalliance/spouse/relative needs one, I can afford to get one across a border. (points: 0)
Civil Rights: Prepaid legal services, youÂ’ll need this one. Ensure your payments are on time. Take a legal class or 2. Date a lawyer! (points: -1)
Deficit Spiralling: No plans to have kids. So I donÂ’t care much. Hope you fuckers donÂ’t have large families. They might have to be rented out as indentured servants to China, Japan et al in the future (points: 0)
Draft Reinstatement: Die in piece. IÂ’m beyond draft age. Die though, in the knowledge that your death did not buy me safety from terrorist nor did it get me cheaper gas. (points: 0)
Estate Tax: I wish I had this problem! (points: 0)
Economic Decline: What? You mean youÂ’ve spent everything you saved in the boom days of the Clintonian era? Silly rabbit! Guess you have to starve then. (points: 0)
Economic Ruin: Still on this topic? Some of us know how to hedge our bets. IÂ’m buying Halliburton, Shell, Smith & Wesson etc. Whenever a bullet punctures a lung, my investment climbs. (points: +1)
Flat Tax: Yes please. I live in a donor state. Why the fuck should I fund some reproducing bunny in backwoods Georgia. (points: +1)
Gay marriage: Straight, donÂ’t need one. If I did discover that I have managed to repress my homosexually thus far, and I needed to get married immediately to compensate for this, IÂ’d take the following (legal) steps. (1) Iron clad contracts, wills, and agreements covering my interest (2) Move to Massachussets if I felt it important enough (3) Move to Holland if I wanted even more protection (points: 0)
Healthcare: IÂ’ll take a hit here. But to stem the blodletting here, IÂ’ll have to vote against any school levies, bond sales etc for the next 4 years. (points: -1)
Privatized Social Security: Well, I never planned to live long enough to collect on this, so imagine the boon when the government hands me a huge check several years early. Please, please gimme the check. And when the older generation live in squalor, IÂ’m hoping to get back enough to afford that villa in the southern harbor of Monaco! (points: +2)
Stem Cell Research: donÂ’t need it (not yet anyway) and when I do, IÂ’ll be able to afford to get the operation from China. [Thanks to the flat tax, estate tax, privatized social security, investments in Halliburton] (points: 0)
Outsourcing: You just have to become better than every person you work it. Think of it as a race (and it is) where the last one to master all needed concepts starve (literally). (points: 0)
Terrorism: IÂ’ll stay away from NY, DC & CA. (My sincere sympathies to these blue staters that essentially shield dumb-fuck red-staters from the wrath of our enemies.) (points: -1 [on sympathy alone!])
Final analysis: Break even! Soooorry Tennessee!
As a final statement, you will see that the choice of president (in the US) leaves relatively unscathed most people that are middle class, educated, reasonably aware of legalities etc. It is sad therefore that the fate of the country is decided by the underclass that continously seek to deprive themselves of a future in the mistaken belief that they are under the seige by either a red menace or liberal elite
The ancient Greek (more specifically Athenian) tolerance for homosexuality is oft cited, but generally misunderstood. Homosexual relations in Athens were generally between older men (erastes or lover) and younger boys (eromenos – loved one) – it was rare to come across two men of the same age in such a relationship. The younger boy would be the object of desire, but not be expected to develop affection for his older suitor. In exchange for sex, the older gentleman would provide for his lover’s material needs and education. Many erastes would still have wives, for the sake of having children.
Secondly, Athenian law did not treat homosexual relationships with the same legal standing as heterosexual marriage. For good reason – historically speaking, marriage was about propagating the family line, and by extension, the society at large. With a worldview that marriage is for promoting family, a homosexual marriage makes no sense, as it could not continue beyond the couple in question. And since Athens was continuously under threat from its neighbors, forgoing children who could defend the city-state was a luxury they could ill afford.
This penchant for young boys was not limited to Athens. In modern Pashtun tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, tribal chiefs often take on young male lovers, while keeping multiple wives. They view the young boys as sexual release, but if you suggest to them that they settle down with a man of the same age, they would look at you like you spoke to them in a foreign language. For them, it is simply sex – not a lifestyle. In the U.S., we have the phenomenon of the “down-low” lifestyle, where men will be married or have steady girlfriends, and occasionally have sex with other men. And the shame in the Catholic Church once again brought about the scene of older men and teenage boys. Morocco is a popular destination for gay European men, due to the ample supply of young men at a reasonable price.
All men (straight or gay) are attracted to youth. But whereas an older man, younger woman can still bear children, no such result comes from a comparable gay couple. Indeed, when a younger woman falls for an older man, she is often warned about his intentions. To put forth the same warning when two men are involved is hardly homophobic.
Marriage is not a right – it is a regulated institution. We set minimum ages, the US forced the Mormons to give up polygamy in order to join the union. It has always been subject to law. To disregard law in order to promote an agenda is counter-productive.
In modern times, we have elevated romance above all else. With a worldview that places primary emphasis on finding oneÂ’s soulmate, the idea of gay marriage is no longer so odd. After all, many straight couples get married without thinking of future children, modern science allows us to postpone having children, and then there are some couples who are infertile, but choose to stay together anyway. So, if marriage can survive under these circumstances, why not extend the institution to gays? ItÂ’s a good argument, but rather than engage in the back and forth of the legislative process, gay activists tried to do a runaround the system by going to the most liberal judiciary they could find.
[“So 22% said they voted on moral values. Wow. That sure is a big number. Did the pollsters ask what those ‘moral issues’ were? No.”]
That’s precisely the point. The concept of “Moral Values” is sooo very vague. So the question becomes, HOW was it so CLEAR to so many? Why was it so often (more than ANY other campaign issue) selected as the MOST fundamental part of the country’s well-being? Who is standardizing this vague notion?
Why– it seems 9/10 times, when the voter finds meaning in this vague concept, he/she is a Bush voter. Hmm, 9/10 times, when a voter deems vague qualities like “Religious Faith” to be most important, he/she is a Bush voter.
These vague concepts refer to the Self, the common currency of an unthinking Conservatism: Self-centered prejudices, Religious dogmas… They are used as substitutes for facts, substitutes for investigating the world– the world must be made to conform and obey my ideology, not understood.
[“And Vinod is right. If you look carefully at the CNN.com poll, the plurality of even Bush voters would be ok with civil unions, just not gay marriage. Still. The majority of people who voted for Bush voted for him for other reasons: 86% of those 19% who said terrorism, 25% of those who 19% who said Iraq and so on and so on.
But keep going. Look. I favor gay marriage. But if you want to stay a minority party for a long, long time, this is the way to do it. To insult the people you should be trying to convince.”]
The objective here is not to insult or even categorize people– the point is, one MUST see beyond “self-preservation mode” (in the terms of Mujahid).
The data show that justifications for Bush votes are overwhelmingly of the Self-Preservation type… if you do the computations I noted(I’m looking specifically at “Most Important Issue”), you see the patterns. Among those voters who are MOST CONCERNED with the External & Objective social issues of 1Economy/Jobs or 2Health-Care or 3Education or 4Iraq (the situation therein): Bush doesn’t gets the support of only 18-26% of the voters. Again, his votes come from people who prize “Moral Values” (80%), the tough-on-“Terrorism” (86%), and (to a much smaller extent) Taxes (57%).
Bush RAN on his Conviction that America is the Moral Authority, that we don’t need outside permission to defend ourselves, we can and will destroy the terrorist-opposition through force, and will destroy deviant opposition-to-God through social legislation, and I want to give you back more money than Kerry does. I’m not saying Conservatives are “bad” people, but it is evident that so many of them are opposed to the consequences of an objective outside their Morals/Faith– Kerry has the “nerve” and Limosine-Liberal “Arrogance” to determine beliefs/actions based on circumstances and evidence? That’s a luxury we can’t afford in these dangerous times!, and that’s why the flip-flop rap stuck. “We’re America godammit, we’re under attack everyone, and the bad people (we all know who they are) must pay… any bad people!”
I’m sorry, but one cannot accept blind-reactive-dogma because of some ill-defined moral obligation to view all points of view as equally valid… this self-absorption becomes a problem when it leads to blindness, and the (self-defeating) compulsion to deal with threats by cultivating fear, by indiscriminate use of aggression.
Institutions change, i.e., slavery.
Interesting perspective from the new yorker:
DEPT. OF AMBIVALENCE THE STRUGGLE Issue of 2004-11-08 Posted 2004-11-01 It was hard to find anyone at the recent anti-gay-marriage rally in Washington, D.C., who had a bad word to say about gays. Chandra Judy, who had come to the “Mayday for Marriage” rally on the Mall with her husband, Manford, and their ten-month-old baby, Eloise, “really wanted to say,” for instance, “that this was not about gay-bashing.” Chandra, who is slender and blond and wore jeans and shiny pale-pink lipstick, said she was a professional dancer in Washington, and knew a lot of gay people. She had no objection to civil unions. What she and her husband were worried about was the institution of marriage. “If the sanctity of one man and one woman is not protected, if we keep expanding the definition, then where’s it going to lead?” Manford wondered. “One man and ten women? A man and a child?” He did not add, as some people attending the rally did, “A man and a dog?” He wore a grave expression and appeared to weigh his words carefully. “If it’s not protected at its root, then it cannot be protected.”
It was a gusty, gray day; sudden cloudbursts sent yellow leaves whirling from trees. Families huddled under umbrellas and ponchos and American-flag beach towels, holding soggy cardboard containers of French fries. An eleven-year-old girl named Jenna waved a sign she had made that read, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But most people in the crowd stuck to the Hallmarkish “Take a Stand for Marriage” logo—T-shirts or signs with a silhouette of a man and woman kissing, illuminated by romantic-looking starlight.
On the podium, speakers such as Gary Bauer, the former Presidential candidate, and Dr. James Dobson, the fatherly chairman of Focus on the Family, were gleefully tearing into “activist judges” and “imperious courts.” But they didn’t have much to say about gay people. Alan Chambers, the “ex-gay” president of an organization called Exodus International (“the leading outreach to men, women, and youth affected by unwanted homosexuality”), urged the crowd to “repent of our hostility to homosexual people.” He went on, “If we’re standing at the corner saying, ‘Turn or Burn’ and ‘God hates fags,’ we’re not behaving like Christians.” This earned him a big burst of applause.
Of course, this was a group of people who believe that homosexuality is a choice, a life style that one becomes “involved in,” rather than a fixed identity into which one is born. Renunciation of certain life styles—drinking, drugtaking—is a familiar trope to the conservative and born-again Christians who composed most of the crowd at the rally. It makes Alan Chambers, whose wife, tousle-haired and serious, stood very close to him on the podium, seem like a persuasive person—somebody who has had sex on both sides of the divide and was here to testify to the superiority of the married, heterosexual kind. “With the gay issue, I try to make the analogy to alcoholism,” Pete Baumgartle, a pastor from a nondenominational Christian church in southern Indiana, said. But, he added, “it gets me into trouble, because then it’s like maybe I’m saying homosexuality is a disease, too.”
All this careful sympathy for the sinner raised the question of how much appetite Americans—even Americans who oppose same-sex marriage—really have for a long fight against it. According to Michael Cromartie, who directs the Evangelicals in Civic Life project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Washington, there is “a kind of ambivalence just beneath the surface of opposition to same-sex marriage, even among people of strong religious convictions,” an ambivalence that may mean it will not become the long-lasting social crusade that the anti-abortion issue is. Cromartie believes that there is a “strand of evangelism that is not exactly libertarian, but is unwilling to beat up on anyone else for their sins; it might be rooted in a theological understanding that we’re broken people in a broken world.”
Chandra Judy was certainly stressing the positives, as well as she could under the circumstances. “I do believe it’s a choice,” she said, clapping warmly for Dr. Dobson as he strode to the stage. “But if people choose to be homosexual that’s their right, and they should get legal benefits and all those things.”
— Margaret Talbot
So denying gays the right to marry is the same as owning them? So, I can just walk over to a gay guy, kidnap him, drag him across an ocean and continent, and ask him to clean my house and mow my lawn, without a cent? There may be a more than a handful of black people that would object to the comparison
Here is my take on this, poll numbers aside. In their heart of hearts all the people responding to this post that voted for Bush feel a bit cheated even in their victory. 90% of you voted for Bush because you believe in his version of the war on terror and his version of the economy. Fair enough. For the next four years however a part of you will loathe the fact (even if deep down inside) that your party won in the way it did. It won fair and square but not for the reasons it should have. Not for the reasons that you believe in the most. To a certain extent all of us that spend time writing and responding to blogs are idealists. We beleive very strongly in our principles. Most of us are very logical and well read, even if our conclusions are different. For an election to be decided (according to 90% of the press) by something as subjective as “moral values,” should worry my intelligent friends on the other side of the aisle as much as it bothers me. Especially the Libertarians and the Greens who value civil liberties so highly. I don’t think this comes down to Democrats disrespecting Republicans and having to pay the consequences. Let me put it in terms of a Cold War analogy. To a certain extent both the U.S. and Russia felt safe because they assumed that those on the other side loved their children too, and so wouldn’t use Nuclear weapons. I think many of us Democrats are saddened in our defeat because that myth has been shattered for us. It wasn’t conventional issues that defeated us. The only way we can fight a weapon as potent as “moral values” (in the way that Christian Fundamentalists use that term) is to use it ourselves. If we do so we have sold out all that we believe in.
Wow Abhi. I’m sure you don’t mean it this way, but do you realize how condescending you sound?
Today a woman who works with me came up to me in the cafeteria. “Hey”, she whispered. ” I heard you voted for Bush. I was kinda suprised. You can’t really admit that around here.”
She went on to say: “He just seems like he has good values to me. He does what he says and he says what he does.”
We had quite a long conversation and not once did gays or Christianity come up. So, had she answered the poll, she would have answered ‘morality’ also.
By the way, talking to friends in Iowa, it seems some farmers were worried about how Kerry’s tax plan would hurt them. Family farmers, not the corporate guys.
[quote: KXB, November 5, 2004 11:43 AM]
KXB, When a group of people are denied civil liberties that others are given, then yes it amounts to a sound comparison.
Marriage is not a liberty. It is an institution. If anything, liberty ends with marriage.
KXB, how about these liberties that depend on marital status?
Prashant:
To ensure that all those matters are addressed, it would would make more sense to draft comprhensive legislation, rather than leaving it to the whim of a judge. Again, I believe gays should be allowed to marry, but by bypassing public opinion, gay activists aliented a majority of people. Now they are even further back in achieving their admirable goal.
Marriage is not a liberty. It is an institution. If anything, liberty ends with marriage.
as a married person all I have to say is : ROFLMAO… and in some ways… true! 🙂
But seriously… The only way we can fight a weapon as potent as “moral values” (in the way that Christian Fundamentalists use that term) is to use it ourselves. If we do so we have sold out all that we believe in
my dear Abhi, don’t fall for the framing that the right has put this debate into; that is, if the Right has the market on Moral Values, then the Left must be the party of Immoral Unvalues… no?
What we need to do is instead of parroting the Republican view of “values” (having the same ideas as the Republicans didn’t work well in this election did it, Kerry?) we need to formulate our own values. We can even base it on Christianity if need be, but of course ‘values’ transcend one religion or another. Here’s some examples:
Care for the poor and downtrodden. Respect the dignity of every human being.
Both parties can have values. The left isn’t full of amoral people and atheists, is it? Don’t let them make you think that.
KXB,
Sometimes a group of people agree to face the consequences of breaking the law to bring issues to the surface. American history is dotted with what you can call Civil Disobedience.
We can argue on and on whether civil disobedience should be practiced or not. The fact is that without civil disobedience a number of liberties enjoyed in America as well as other parts of the world would not be reality.
FYI, I posted up a longer, more detailed article on my blog about this topic & referenced a fair amount of number crunching – here.