The truth about the theo-cons
Michael Totten links to an article from Andrew Coyne on a topic that I’ve been meaning to write about myself. That being the assumption by the MSM that Bush won on the votes of so-called theo-cons, and not on swing votes from moderates and liberals. Bush broadened his base, but the media line that he won by amassing an army of theocrats is just way too easy for Kerry supporters to swallow (it avoids self-reflection).
Totten:
45 percent of the people who voted for Bush are self-described liberals or moderates. (Earth to Democrats: That’s why he beat you.) Only 55 percent of the people who voted for Bush are conservatives. (See Andrew’s piece for the details.) And, as most of us know, there are many different kinds of conservatives. There are neocons and paleocons, Wall Street conservatives and religious conservatives. Not to mention plain old run-of-the-mill conservatives. It’s a fractious group of people who have little in common but, oddly enough, happen to wear the same useless label.
Zeroing in on only one of those factions and blowing it all out proportion will get the Democrats nowhere. It makes as much sense as Ann Coulter accusing every leftie in the land of being pro-terrorist. It’s not only dumb but exceptionally counterproductive.
If Kerry won the election I wouldn’t say it was because of Michael Moore and his stupid-ass movie. If it went that way it would have done so despite him.
Coyne:
Let’s move on. 37% of voters identified themselves as Republicans, the same as the Democratic turnout: the first time that has happened for a long time, if ever. That fits with the “turn out the base” thesis (I’m not saying it’s not true — just that it’s not the whole truth). But crunch the numbers a little further. Bush got roughly 90% of the Republican vote, plus 10% of the Democratic vote — plus 50% of Independents. Add it up: that means fully one-third of Bush’s vote came from non-Republicans — the same proportion as the “moral values” voters.
Possibly there’s some overlap — or a lot — between the two. That’s the point. Even if it were true that Bush drew disproportionate support among moral-majority types, that’s only one of many possible ways of slicing the data, and it’s revealing that analysts would seize on it. (See Jacques Parizeau, “Money and the Ethnic Vote: A Study in Selective Interpretation.”)
For example, we might also note that Bush’s support increased significantly among women (at 48%, there was effectively no gender gap: indeed he led Kerry 55-44 among white women), among Hispanics (44%, a record for any Republican candidate), among blacks (okay, it was only 11%, up from 9% last time, but that’s a one-fifth increase!), among Jews (at 25%, a one-third expansion), and among Catholics (where he beat Kerry, a Catholic, 52-47).
When a candidate draws increased numbers of votes from groups not traditionally identified with his party, we usually call that “broadening the base.” So why the fascination with zombie hordes of theo-cons?
Amen to that (read the whole thing)! Focussing on this illusory red-state/blue-state divide is more destructive to American life than almost anything either men could do while in office. There’s a map portraying the ‘red states’ as ‘jesusland’ that seems to be everywhere on the internet these days and twists the truth so badly, xenophobically, and hatefully that it makes you want to weep. How many liverjournallistas have linked to this map showing how purple the whole union actually is?
I’d love to see that gradient broken down further, to counties, showing how false the seemingly distinct state lines actually ar. Sure this would underscore the urban-rural split, which is real, but then we might be able to avoid having drivel such as the following hateful screeds printed in the mainstream press (Jane Smiley at Slate in this case (hat tip:belmontclub)):
I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. … Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states.
Maybe in your family Jane.
The Democrats did not lose because Bush managed to attract the same people who supported him in 2000 and supported Dole in 1996 and supported Bush41 in 1992. they lost because of the few percent of moderates or liberals in the middle who had voted for Al Gore in 2000. What is the one subject on which that the electorate as a whole consistently rated Bush higher than any of his potential Democratic challengers. It wasn’t ‘moral values’, it was security. That is where this election was lost. Swing voter Totten again:
I didn’t vote for George W. Bush in 2000. I’ve never voted for any Republican president. This time was my first. And I did so because of the Terror War.
I know quite a few people who didn’t support Bush last time but did support him this time. And every single one of them did so for the same reasons I did. Because of the Terror War. Because Kerry could not be trusted.
I don’t know of anyone, anywhere, who swung from Al Gore to George W. Bush because of gay marriage, tax cuts, or for any other reason. I’m not saying they don’t exist. But if they do exist, I haven’t heard of ’em. They’re an invisible, miniscule minority.
There aren’t enough of us liberal hawks, disgruntled Democrats, neo-neoconservatives - or whatever else you might want to call us - to trigger a political realignment. But it does appear we can swing an election. At least we can help. And though I don’t think of myself as conservative (I did just vote for a Democratic Congress), my alienation from the liberal party is total. A political party that thinks crying Halliburton! is a grown-up response to anti-totalitarian war just isn’t serious.
I may vote for the Democratic candidate next time around. Then again, I might not. I’ll be watching what happens over the next four years, trying to decide if I’m part of the new wave of neoconservatives or if I’m just Independent. We shall see.
Kerry had no vision for dealing with the mess caused by 50 years of desultory middle-east policy, the absolute failure of arab socialism and pan-arab nationalism to produce livable societies for their people, and unimaginably extreme fascistic, racist hatred being pumped out as state religion to hundreds of millions of people from cradle to grave. There were those of us (including the Economist, and TNR) who understood this, but who measured Bush’s incompetency higher than the risk of handing the task off to someone who we couldn’t be sure got it. But given the choice between a man whose aim may have been better, versus one who may not handle a bow well but at least can identify the target, many broke to the right. That’s what turned the election.
Not to turn this post into a complete Michael Totten digest, but hat tip is appropriate for this view on how the reaction to Bush’s victory plays out in a real theocracy:
Millions of Iranians expressed their satisfaction on the outcome of the US Presidential elections and George W. Bush’s victory by calling and congratulating each other. Many were seen walking in the streets and shaking each others hands or showing a discret V sign.
Many are speaking about the promises made by Mr. Bush to back the Iranian Nation in its quest for freedom and democracy.
As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy , those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future.
Think the students of Iran are all mis-informed idiot reactionaries as well?
November 5th, 2004 at 19:49
I agree with most of what you said. Kerry lost largely because he and the democrats ran a confusing campaign with little or no concrete prescriptions for the future and the support for both parties was more evenly spread than most pundits are letting on. I think, however, that it is not bush’s reelection alone that is bumming a lot of people out. It is the 12 states that passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriages. It is the radical zealots who were elected to the senate who promise to ban abortion outright (and probably even will consider banning ‘dudes even looking at dudes’). These point to a shift in american culture away from what a lot of liberals consider core values and that is what scares them. This is not just a red state blue state problem, because blue oregon banned gay marriage as well. This is ‘moral values’ eroding civil rights, which is frightening. And bush seems intent on pushing a moral agenda.
Also, just to be a jerk, I should point out that a high ranking Iranian minister also came out in support of Bush during the election. You can interpret that how you want. Although I’m still inclined to consider him a mis-informed idiot reactionary.
November 6th, 2004 at 14:09
Two other interesting cartographic interpretations of the red state/blue state divide that are worth looking at are here and here.
November 6th, 2004 at 22:58
Here’s the county-by-county map I was looking for
November 7th, 2004 at 06:27
I think you are also over estimating the swing voters. it is easy to think of them as principled non-partisans if you are primarily reading blogs and the New Republic, but they are generally the least educated proportion of the voting population. They are the ones that make decisions based on soundbites and what people say around the office rather than considerate people who deliberate the two candidates. They linkely do not know a thing about Iran or Iraq but like the president’s “character” without having much idea what he is doing. In this sense, the war on terror and the culture war are the same thing to them. Swing voters approve of the war on terror because it means that they do not have to rethink their values or position in the world, and not thinking is their highest value at the end of the day.
It is also important to remember that counties are highly partisan, which is why the senate has a 99% incumbancy rate. Even if states contain roughly even numbers of republicans and democrats, voting districts are rarely competitive. Higher numbers in one county can make it look as though the state has switched sides, but the suburban / urban split is still the determining factor. The real red / blue divide is between semi-rural suburbanites who have little contact with foreigners and have little meaningful contact with the people that they are voting to take rights away from (whether that is gays or blacks) and people who live in more diverse areas. It is also between the urban people who are likely to suffer in the event of a terrorist attack and those who can afford to be belligerent without without worrying that their family might be killed.
As always the media is too scared to even mention that the most solidly democratic places are also the ones that have the most to lose from a clash of civilisations. The Daily Show sketch on the links between terrorism and homoism points this common link between belligerence and xenophobia well. That is why New York City and DC voted solidly democrat and the surrounding counties that will likely not have to face openly gay people, foreigners, or a terrorist attack voted for Bush. They will not have to live with the consequences of either the anti-gay amendments or Bush’s “war on terror”. In the end, the suburbocrats hate New York, even while they pretend to feel at open with them. They hate diversity, modernity, and internationalism as much as they hate terrorism, or they would be appalled by the Bush administration’s lack of homeland security for the site of the largest attack and the likely site of the next one.
It is very significant that these people who are voting not to think are the same people who fought teeth and nail to save slavery. That some people in the free states have come to agree with them and some of them have rethought their knee-jerk reactions to liberty does not change the basic orientation of the map. Red states are still in favor of a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant America. Blue states still contribute everything that makes the US great. They are net contributers to the Red State and produce nearly all of the cultural and technological breakthroughs. That much has never changed and probably never will, whether there are large pockets of democrats in Red states or not. If anything, the divide will probably get worse with more white people moving to the suburbs and African-Americans and Latinos filling up the cities.