On the cultural divide
It seems that pundits, the media and bloggers are going out of their way to analyze why Kerry lost. The operative question really is why did Bush win? I do think the framing of the question in that manner denotes a bias towards Kerry as it infers an expectation that he would win. And the media expected him to win, after all everyone they know voted for him. The Democrats are going to go through a change. Some are upset. Some are strategizing. Some are insane. The big question is why and where do they go from here.
Some are crowing that it was gay marriage, even to the point where they have issued marching orders to repeat the claim even if it is false. However, Bush does seem to be pushing this federal marriage amendment thing again. Bush supports letting the states decide on civil unions. I personally can’t quite figure out why it’s important whether you call it marriage or civil union or Reginald for that matter. The majority seems to support civil unions.
Some are crowing that it was God, or evangelicals, or the radical Christian right. I’m sure there is some truth to this because the red states tended to be protestant. Blue states were predominantly Catholic.
Some crow about the youth vote. First, it didn’t show up. Then we find out it did. Now, it seems that it did but other demographics showed up to. I should point out that some under 30 voters, you know, vote Republican. My wife did.
And, of course, the dreaded South, illustrated in excruciating detail here by someone who doesn’t understand adjective modifier rules. People like this guy, who want to paint red America with such a broad brush, are why liberals would lose again. And his guy has essentially affirmed the belief commonly held that the rest of the country doesn’t care what we southerners think.
Kurtz on let the explaining begin:
“Bush did a very good job of creating some wedge issues on the moral values front,” says CBS correspondent John Roberts. “That was a real surprise, something we didn’t catch on to until late in the game. We all kind of missed the boat on that.”
So, did Bush win because he created wedge issues? I can’t say. However, he did have a message and stuck to it.
Journalists “don’t understand red-state America,” says Newsweek’s Howard Fineman. “I’m an indicted co-conspirator. . . . Most people in what is left of the big media live and work in blue-state America, and that shaped our view of the election.”
There it is. The allusion to the media elite. The culture war. Middle America vs. the fringes (fringes of America, not political fringes). Us good ol’ boy, beer drinkin’, gun totin’, pick up truck drivin’ inbreds vs. the snooty, Hollywood loving, pseudo-intellectual and probably Jewish upper crust.
All the talking heads seem obsessed with this red America v. blue America when most states are actually shades of purple. There is a divide and it is regional. However, it’s not absolute and it seems to be only a few issues in number but pretty major issues. Democrats seem to be becoming a regional party due to these few issues.
The Republican party (at least this administration) seems to have given up on a few of its ideals (namely small government and fiscal conservatism). And for some reason it worked for them, which I find amazing. I suppose if given the choice between big spending liberals or big spending conservatives, America picks conservatives.
The fact is that if you asked 100 people why they voted for who they voted for, you’d get dozens of answers. There is no one thing. And that’s what scares the Democrats. They have to change several things, not just one, to get back in the game.
The question now is does the machine keep wallowing in the past or does it try to move forward? How long will the Democrat blogs, for example, lick their wounds? Are they retooling their message? Beats me. Manish has some advice for them and I think he’s right. If the Dems became the party of fiscal responsibility and realized that gun control is a political loser at the national level (that damn South!), they could probably turn a few libertarian leaning Republicans.
November 8th, 2004 at 2:25 pm
Bush doesn’t support civil unions. He pays lip service to civil unions while pushing a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from having civil unions.
As for why gays want marriage and not just shmarriage, it’s all about the dignity. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
I think what the gov should do is just get out of the marriage business entirely. Let the churches marry people and get government out of family planning.
November 8th, 2004 at 2:28 pm
I don’t disagree. After all, marriage from the state’s perspective is just a contract.
Heck, my wedding was in a gay bar with a local Republican office holder officiating.
November 8th, 2004 at 3:13 pm
And that’s what scares the Democrats. They have to change several things, not just one, to get back in the game.
I don’t know about the Democratic party per se, but the progressives in all parties are going to win the “culture war” hands down.
Also, taking the game metaphor further, this was not a blow-out, and the Republicans are celebrating a thirty year reign a bit prematurely given the pathetic state of their bench.
What do they have?. A bunch of Jurassic fuddy duddies that are too damned complacent about their ascendency and are plagued with image problems of their own (Delay, Guiliani, et. al.). Schwarzenegger is probably their future, but it will take him some time and the party will have to re-align significantly before he can take control.
The Dems, OTOH,have some promising red shirt freshmen (like Barack Obama, Evan Bayh, Ellito Spitzer, Stephanie Herseth, etc.).
As for Hillary, she will continue to be a force for defining what “centrist” Democrat means. You don’t hear much from her in the national media, but she’s running on a message of “tough love” liberal to counter the “compassionate conservative” schtick of the Bushistas (which has a VERY limited shelf-life). Her voting record is conservative on terrorism and warfighting, and moderate on social issues. Her big crusade is to create an environment that supports employability over employment security. Not that different from Bush, except that she feels there needs to be some real investment to keep Americans working in a competitive global marketplace. She views it as an extension of the Clinton era welfare reform. She’s even got old fogeys like William Safire fawning over her, and she’s more popular than Giuliani or Schumer. I predict she skips a 2008 presidential run and runs for governor of New York (she’ll have to arm wrestle Elliot Spitzer). That will position her for very well for 2012.
Which leaves an interesting question…
Who the heck will either party run in 2008?
Americans are not going to vote for another Bush, that’s too damned close to hereditary rule and I don’t think it’s in our national DNA. Edwards blew his political capital with this election in my opinion.
I predict Phil Bredesen for the Dems and Colin Powell for the Republicans. I know they both seem like longshots right now, but stranger things have happened. At any rate, it wouldn’t be a bad contest.
November 8th, 2004 at 3:49 pm
Maye in an ideal world, the state would see marriage as just a contract, but that’s not the way it works now. Married people have a different status than unmarried people. Married people have rights and benefits under the law that unmarried people lack. If it was just about contract rights, then any two people could sit down and hammer out an equivalent contract, regardless of whether the state wanted to recognize their marriage. If it was just about contracts, civil unions wouldn’t require government sanction.
November 8th, 2004 at 4:16 pm
lobbygow: I disagree with most of what you said, but agree that Bredesen could be a good Democratic candidate in 2008.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:26 pm
Words mean something. That is why I’m against gay “marriages”. I do not have any problem with civil unions that confer all the same rights and privilages that marriage confers on hetrosexual couples. It is same problem I see with semi-automatic fire arms being called “Assault Weapons”.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
I disagree with most of what you said
Well at least you’re thinking.
Who do you think is the rising Republican star?
I don’t see who they have for 2008.
Jeb Bush – No way.
McCain – No way, and that’s a shame.
Giuliani – He’ll get fewer votes than Kerry and may not even win New York.
Ahnold – Too early, although it’s possible.
I guess there could be some other Republican governors out there. I don’t see either party as eager to run a senator next time. The voting record is too much of a liability, unless you’re a short timer, in which case the charge will be “inexperienced.”
Who will it be for the GOP?
I wonder what the party strategists are thinking.
I’m betting they’re just as likely as the Dems to overinterpret or misread this year’s election results.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:39 pm
Words mean something.
Then you’d be OK if every state in the union changed the word “marriage license” to “civil union certificate,” and left the sanctifying up to the churches.
That’s what ought to happen. This whole brouhaha is over a bunch of words. Saying that conferring the legal status known as “married” is a sanctification is like saying the assignment of birth certificates is a christening or authorizing death certificates is equivalent to last rights.
Any faith is welcome to set up the rules for performing a “legitimate” marriage ceremony in their view. They are welcome to refuse the sacrament to people who don’t qualify and they are welcome to believe those who obtain “married” status in the absence of the official church ceremony are going to Hell.
What they aren’t welcome to do is decide who gets which legal rights. That’s a clear violation of the separation of Church and State.
November 8th, 2004 at 5:41 pm
“last rights” should be “last rites.” I guess it was a Freudian slip since I don’t think our rights are going to last if the fundies get their way.
Fortunately, there’s little chance of them getting their way.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:16 pm
SU..thanks for the link. To be clear, I don’t think Dems should give up on gun control because its a political loser. I think they should give up on gun control because its ineffective and goes against most other liberal beliefs including civil liberties, respect for the Bill of Rights, etc.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:23 pm
I was calling it a loser (just look at TN and W. Va in 2000), sorry for the confusion.
November 8th, 2004 at 10:25 pm
What’s interesting to me is how many people voted on issues that don’t directly affect them (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, etc.) while ignoring others (e.g., the economy) that do.
November 9th, 2004 at 10:30 am
What’s interesting to me is how many people voted on issues that don’t directly affect them
I think we are in danger of oversimplifying this election. Karl Rove would like nothing better than for Democrats to try to beat them at their own game. It can’t be done. Instead, we need to reframe the entire conversation.
In New York and New Jersey, the majority of Bush voters I heard interviewed cited fear of higher taxes as being the reason they voted for Bush. When you figure that a family making $200K up here is like a family making $85K in the heartland, that’s not too surprising. Believe me, I know.
People that voted for Kerry often cited terrorism as their main concern. They feel Bush’s invasion of Iraq has made terrorist attacks more likely, at least in the short term. They are also VERY pissed about what they feel is a lack of funding for homeland security. New York feels they’ve been given the short end of the stick. The Red State welfare thing is starting to resonate.
I hate to be crass, but I think people who think before they vote had reasons that varied widely depending on their local context.
People who don’t think voted for their team unquestionably. Ultimately, Bush was a better cheerleader for the team supporters. Why should we be surprised? He’s had experience in that area, Kerry wasted his time learning to debate.
The Bush team simply outplayed Kerry.