I’ve got to admit, I’ve been stalling. Normally I feel like I can find some political niche to at least try and offer some insight, but with every pundit, columnist, and blogger writing nonstop about the election for two solid weeks there’s very little I could say that hasn’t already been said. So I’ve decided to briefly address two election-related topics and then move on to bigger and better things. I’d like to first discuss the assertion from my previous post that it’s all about values, and then offer an opinion regarding the future direction of the Democratic Party.
So, a number of analysts who initially professed “values” as the storyline of 2004 have since retreated from their initial positions. Well, I won’t be deterred so easily. In my opinion, the pundits who initially targeted values and then retracted did so because their definition of values was too narrow. In many cases they specifically believed that the “threat” of gay marriage, combined with the 11 state constitutional amendments affirming traditional marriage, caused evangelical conservative turnout to skyrocket. But when they analyzed the exit poll data showing that Bush increased his vote share from 2000 in nearly every demographic category, they quickly reversed course. Why? My guess is because the definition of values is so meanderingly broad that if we aren’t specifically blaming the divide on one or two specific values, it gets too complicated for us.
The definition of a value as “a principle, standard or quality considered worthwhile or desirable” is ridiculously nebulous. But because values are so intangible and person-centered, they aren’t and shouldn’t be limited merely to a few universally recognized issues. In other words, we aren’t very good at defining the world values correctly, but I contend we don’t have to be. This debate isn’t about who has values or what values they have, it’s about who believes they have values. Or better still, it’s about who believes the other side has significantly different values.
In places like New York and San Francisco, voters were completely and utterly baffled at the outcome of the election. [hat tip: Win Cook] Here are some quotes from locals interviewed in the articles:
“New Yorkers are savvy. We have street smarts. Whereas people in the Midwest are more influenced by what their friends say.”
“People who are more competitive and proficient at what they do tend to gravitate toward cities.”
“I’m saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country - the heartland.”
“I am depressed, but I am also just really angry at the rest of the country’s ignorance.”
One might also check out the November 4 cover of the London tabloid The Daily Mirror, the new post-election national map [via Donald Luskin], or read radical articles like Jane Smiley’s The Untouchable Ignorance of the Red States. And for the record, I’m perfectly aware that there are plenty of people like this in the red states too — the evidence just hasn’t emerged quite so prevalently in this round because the red side won.
Bob Herbert, who I don’t normally care for, gets it right in my view when he writes:
You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?
What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.
Try as they might to claim it, neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on the values debate. Both offer sound and legitimate positions on a number of issues, and their ability to seize legitimate positions from the other side when the opportunity arises (e.g. civil rights, Wilsonian diplomacy, fiscal responsibility) is one of the reasons both parties have endured for so long even as their policy positions have oscillated throughout the years. But if the members of any one party believe it should be their way or the highway and they hope to succeed in promoting their worldview � the overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world — it is their responsibility to frame their case as a compelling set of values that are worth adopting or believing.
Again, note the distinction I�m drawing between a broader values divide and the more specific claim � one I believe to be false � that the divide exists primarily in the ridiculously caricatured stereotypes that red and blue staters have created for each other. On this point David Brooks and I are, as usual, in agreement. (Well, I�m in agreement with him; I doubt he reads much of what I write.) One might recall hearing that the exit poll data showed �moral values� topping the list of central voting issues, a notion that was soon debunked when it became clear that economic and security issues were broken down into categories far too small to make an effective comparison. Some analysts and commentators have tried to distance themselves from the values hypothesis based on this refutation, but I don�t believe such distancing is necessary. Security issues are still values issues � a voter either fundamentally believes that the war in Iraq is part of the broader War on Terror or the voter doesn�t. Economic issues are still values issues � a voter either believes there are long-run benefits to an across-the-board tax cut or the voter doesn�t.
Voters who believe steadfastly in their side on these issues will do well to realize that for most voters the mindset resulting in these positions is rooted in the framing of values, not logic. If mindsets on political issues were rooted in logic, we could have the candidates submit position papers instead of campaigning. Like it or not, turning heads and changing minds in elections is less about convincing the public of the sensibility of the cause and more about convincing the public of the righteousness of the cause. As one who has tried to embrace logic in my decision-making process I am not happy about this distinction, but pragmatically speaking that makes it no less true.
One final thought for this lengthy post: no one was duped. The vast majority of voters knew well the stakes, and the vast majority of voters can�t be written off as left-wing nutjobs or right-wing fanatics. A sensible account of the 2004 race will reasonably conclude that the people who voted for Bush weren�t all rednecks, that many were persuadable — not undecided, but persuadable — until the bitter end but voted Republican in aingst, and that relentless mockery of the former may yet prove to be a less effective strategy than showing a little more sympathy for the latter.
