It seems to me that the reason the concept of "moral values" is getting so much play right now both in the press and in the (lefty) 'sphere is that it comes as a surprise that it was such a dominant factor in the election. It's a surprise because the press didn't report on it. The press didn't report on it because the pollsters didn't ask the question. So once again, the press isn't really reporting anything new or interesting about the state of affairs in the United States. The press is reporting about itself: we didn't see this coming, so therefore it's a big deal.
I don't think that cultural conservatives turning out at the polls and breaking for Bush in such large numbers is in any way a surprise. Karl Rove said repeatedly that his goal was to turn out the supposed 4 million evangelicals that didn't vote in 2000. In a very simplistic way of looking at the election numbers, Bush won by exactly those four million voters: in 2000, he lost the popular vote by ~500,000 votes and this time he's won it by ~3.5 million votes.
But was it in fact conservative evangelicals who won this election for Bush, or was a larger group that contain some swing voters? That is, I hear on NPR that 22% of the sample captured in exit polls said that "moral values" was the top issue that decided their vote. Among this sample, 80% said they voted for Bush. Let's say that this is, in fact, a representative sample of the entire U.S. electorate. This means that approximately 20.24 million voters (that's .8 * (.2 * 115,000,000)) of the 2004 electorate voted for Bush because of their feelings about "moral values". What proportion of these voters can be won into the Democratic party? What will it take to do so?
Are abortion, guns, and gays really the issue here, as so many in the lefty 'sphere seem to think? If that's so, what about Republicans who are pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, pro-gun control, or pro-gay rights (some of whom are quite prominant and worked pretty hard to get GW elected, like Schwarzenegger and Giuliani)? Why is it that the Democrats position themselves as the inclusive, tolerant party, when it's actually the Republicans who evidently have a "bigger tent" on issues like this (before I get hammered for this statement, ask yourself how many prominant Democrats are pro-life or anti-gun control)? Why do people like Giuliani and Schwarzenegger stay in the Republican party? As the Democrats think about what to do over the next four years, this question must be answered.
Would trying to win over some proportion of the 20+ million voters who voted for Bush on "moral values" require actually changing the policy choices of the Democratic party, or can it be done by a change in attitude? I think it's mostly attitude, but there are a number of interests that hold great sway in the Democratic party that either would strongly resist any change to the party's policy agenda (unions, environmentalists, peace movement types), or the party itself would have a very hard time pulling away from, due to its need for funding (Hollywood, trial lawyers, and unions again). Any change in the party will be difficult at best. Yet the reality is that the Democrats have been cast as the party that is:
- intolerant of dissenting views on the environment, abortion and gun control
- in favor of the big-government nanny-state that knows better than you do
- weak on national defense and eager to defend those who want to harm Americans
- eager to take away your money and give it to people who don't want to work for a living
- secular to the core
It seems to me that the Democratic party's progressive vision has been obscured to many Americans by these visceral feelings about the party. Sadly, the Republicans have successfully painted liberals and Dems as effete, America-hating, tax-loving hedonists. The change in the meaning of the word liberal (more on this later) for many people is emblematic of this. Rather than indicating a person that is compassionate, protective of liberty, and tolerant of dissenting views, the labels "liberal" and "Democrat" have come to mean the things I laid out above. Liberals (and even moderates) in America have been caricatured, but I believe they have made the Republicans' job easier by attitudes of moral superiority and intolerance toward religion and cultural conservatism.
Can Democrats reform this much in the next four years? I highly doubt it. For those of you like me who tend to the center and for those to the left of me, I think the election of 2004 is the beginning of a long journey in the wilderness.
