 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
THE VALUES CHASE (Part I) (First of two articles) Pundits and politicians – primarily Democrats – have been worrying over “values” since voters shocked them by reelecting George W. Bush with a margin of 3.5 million votes. The values thing arose because some exit polls indicated that large numbers of voters might have voted for “W” because of values. Some highly placed Democrats say that the Party’s candidate did not do a good enough job of presenting himself as a values candidate or identifying with voters’ concerns and values – i.e., a failure of form, not substance. They talk as though “values” were something you carry around and hand out, as needed – like campaign buttons or pamphlets. Still others say the problem was the voters, who did not understand that the issues Democrats stand for should be their greatest concerns – e.g., welfare, housing, Social Security, creation of jobs, racial preferences, abortion rights, full equality for gays, educational funding, caring for the poor, protection of minorities. Democrats cannot see why this catalog of social concerns did not attract large numbers of middle class voters. A few have even suggested that voters were “too stupid” to understand that Democrats are the party of their key interests. Some politicians think values can be contrived (i.e., faked) via stunts or photo-ops. Thus, John Kerry posing in hunting drag, with a shotgun casually draped over his arm, will persuade voters that he cares about the Second Amendment (although his voting record in the Senate suggests otherwise). Or Mr. Kerry attending Mass and taking Communion will show Catholics he is one of them (although he is crosswise with the Church on abortion and homosexuality). During one of the debates, President Bush noted that a list of complaints is not a plan. Just so, values are more than talking points. They are principles by which an individual (or a group) actually lives. Values inform the direction (and actions) of one’s life. A politician’s political values drive his formation of public policy. In rare cases, a politician’s values seamlessly inform both his private and personal conduct. My grandpa called it being “whole cloth” – i.e., the same when no one is looking as you are in public. The greatest public leaders are always such people. A political campaign centers on issues voters care about and on the positions candidates take on those issues. But more than that, the campaign spotlights the candidates’ actions on those issues. From those actions voters infer the values by which the candidates actually live and govern. It follows, therefore, that casual comments about being an altar boy forty years ago do not necessarily indicate a strong religious faith. A highly publicized day of duck-hunting does not equate to protecting the Second Amendment. And four months of military service in Vietnam do not put national defense in your value-column – especially when that service was followed by arguably traitorous anti-war activism, slander of your comrades-in-arms, and two decades of opposition in the Senate to most military weapons and actions to protect our country. Sometimes a candidate expends large amounts of money and effort trying to persuade voters that his past actions do not correctly indicate his values. Campaigns become gigantic feats of legerdemain, as when Bill Clinton sold the idea that he was a “new” kind of Democrat. Usually, though, such efforts fail to convince voters. Mr. Kerry waged such a campaign. He and his staff tried mightily to persuade voters that he was something besides a New England liberal standing on the “far left bank” of mainstream American politics. But despite Mr. Kerry’s great forensic skills, the effort didn’t sell. Contrary to what some observers have said, I believe: (1) That Democrats are, indeed, a party of “values; (2) that they did an excellent job of communicating those values to the electorate; and (3) that voters fully comprehended those values and appreciated what they meant. The Democrats’ problem was that the values they were pushing – values clearly held by the Party’s leaders and core constituencies – were disharmonious with values held by voters over large areas of the country. This was particularly true in the red states. What did voters think Mr. Kerry’s and Mr. Bush’s values were? And how did they resonate with those values? I thought it would be instructive to analyze a few key values to try to understand why things turned out as they did. This is not meant to be comprehensive – only illustrative. Belief in America . I list this value first because I think it resonates most strongly with the collective mind of the country. With rare exceptions, every presidential election is basically about how the candidates line up with this value. From my vantage point, it looks like voters nearly always choose the candidate who makes the best case – by both word and deed – for why he believes in the America of the past, present, and future. What I heard John Kerry say was: ‘Everything we have done for the last four years was wrong. The country is in a mess. The war was wrong. Jobs are going overseas. Racism is out of control. People are starving. The sick are being denied treatment. We’re back where we were during the Great Depression. Americans are lost and helpless. Only I can save the country from itself.’ By contrast, George W. Bush said: ‘Yes, we have some problems. Some of them are big ones. Some are even life-threatening. We took some hard punches, but now we’re punching back. We are at war with a ruthless foe and we will defeat him. And we are moving ahead. America is basically in good shape. The future is bright. People have freedom. They have opportunities. They are raising families and building wealth. We can improve on all of this by getting government out of the way. We can solve our problems and we can defeat our enemies. Let’s do it together!’ Although many voters (including yours truly) agree that we do have some big problems, most of us don’t like hearing that those problems are bigger than the American People. This never flies. We are a stubborn race. We have pride. We believe we are a great people. And we never want to be told that things are so bad that only one guy can save us. Mr. Kerry’s message with respect to this key value was flawed. Absent an event of catastrophic scope, he could not win with it. Defense of the Nation . Mr. Bush matured as president by being commander-in-chief during a great national emergency. He sprang to the nation’s defense like the proverbial Lion of Judah. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks even his political opponents said (privately) that they were glad Mr. Bush was president instead of Al Gore. Because of the attacks and the ongoing war, national defense was Mr. Bush’s strongest card for reelection. Usually national defense is a given for both candidates, and it is considered churlish for either candidate to question the goodness of this value in his opponent. But Mr. Kerry questioned it in himself. He knew his Senate record did not show strength on national defense. He also thought his old anti-war activities might raise concerns. Thus, Mr. Kerry decided on the risky stratagem of emphasizing four months in Vietnam, ca. 1968, as his national defense bona fides. This strategic decision represented a disastrous misjudgment by the Kerry camp. Instead of letting his spotted past lie dormant – as most voters were content to do – Mr. Kerry enraged thousands of veterans when he dramatically saluted and declared that he was “reporting for duty” at the start of his acceptance speech. These veterans were still seething with resentment over Mr. Kerry’s 1971 Congressional testimony, when he claimed (without proof) that U. S. forces had routinely engaged in war crimes of the vilest sort. Some analysts believe the subsequent attacks of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth fatally wounded Mr. Kerry’s candidacy by destroying his credibility on this key value. I believe his campaign never saw it coming. The Normal Culture . When I was growing up, most people lived in a style considered “normal”. Marriage and families were central to this way of life. Of course, there were widows and widowers, as well as divorced and never-married people, but unmarried women having children were rare. So was unmarried cohabitation. No doubt some people had homosexual relationships, but they kept out of sight. Most people attended church or synagogue. Schools reinforced the “normal” culture. Acceptance of the Normal Culture crossed racial lines. It is now considered politically incorrect to claim that there is such a thing as a Normal Culture in America. In the postmodern era, the Democratic Party worships at the shrine of “diversity”. Every kind of lifestyle, sexual practice, family arrangement, and public behavior is considered perfectly acceptable – unless the lifestyle involves anything patriotic or Christian. Despite a strong diversity sales job by academics, liberal elites and big media, a large segment of America still believes in that Normal Culture. Its parameters include love of country, traditional family life, religious faith, respect for law, respect for people and their property, ambition, personal responsibility, honesty, commitment, decency, courage, honor, chivalry. Believers in the Normal Culture are willing to tolerate others who live outside it, but they don’t want their culture disrespected or bullied. They don’t like to be pushed around. And they don’t want deviant lifestyles declared equivalent – or even superior – to the Normal Culture. They expect public schools to emphasize and reinforce these values. Perhaps imagining that they had shouted down the Normal Culture idea, Democrats have been incautious about linking themselves to non-normal lifestyles like militant homosexuality, gay marriage, unmarried cohabitation, and single parenting – and promoting them in public schools. Attacks on Christianity also are much associated with Democratic supporters like the ACLU. Both blacks and Hispanics – historically some of the Democratic Party’s most dependable constituencies – are becoming alarmed by the Party’s militant anti-Christian, pro-deviancy, pro-abortion direction. Some are openly questioning whether their continued association with the Democratic Party is appropriate or productive. Whatever Mr. Kerry’s personal attitudes toward the Normal Culture actually were, he could not distance himself from his party’s highly publicized antipathy to that culture. Foul-mouthed, wooly-headed film stars spouting bizarre political theories (“…if you believe rape should be legal, don’t vote…”) and filthy invective cost Mr. Kerry dearly in regions where Normal Culture predominates. With friends like Michael Moore, Mr. Kerry really didn’t need enemies. Mr. Bush was not similarly disadvantaged by his party’s values. Voters could see that he supported the Normal Culture and was solidly part of it. His obviously strong marriage and affectionate relationship with his wife, Laura, were living proof that he possessed this value. ******* Next week I’ll continue this analysis of what values did to and for John F. Kerry and George W. Bush in the election of 2004.
|
|
| ||||||
