Michelle Cottle in TNR argues that this is the “moral of the story”:
According to the voter breakdown that CNN is currently hawking, the top reason that Bush voters gave for supporting their guy was not the economy, not Iraq, not even the war on terrorism. It was “moral values.” That’s right, with American soldiers dying overseas, Al Qaeda still gunning for us at home, the deficit spiraling, the gap between rich and poor growing, Social Security on the brink, etc., etc., Bush’s reelection was driven by a bunch of folks freaked out over the thought of gay marriage and stem-cell research.
God save the republic.
Penetrating analysis!
The moral of the story is, I believe, that “moral values” voters have a fairly deep and unified cultural identity that Bush was able to tap into. Bush was able to evoke a spirit of solidarity with a huge expanse of voters who share a fundamental conception of America and an ideal of Christian family life. I don’t believe the essence of this group consists in the fact that they are “freaked out over the thought of gay marriage and stem-cell research.” Cottle demonstrates the sort of reflexive, condescending idiocy that directly contributed to the Democrat’s defeat. The issues of marriage, homosexuality, and the moral status of embryos, together with Bush’s forceful patriotism and rhetoric of leadership, were used masterfully by Bush to evoke a compelling conception of American identity, an ethos of a strong, virtuous, and distinctly American America. The antipathy of the “international community” only solidified the sense that Bush was the true representative of American national character, which the foreigners loathe, as the plain loathe the pretty, because we are better than they are.
Will Saletan says Bush won because his message was simple. Yes. Simple and appealing to a huge mass of voting Americans. Bush’s people, as opposed to Kerry’s, brilliantly packaged a coherent personal narrative: the story of a massively privileged youth who squanders his patrimony through vice and idleness, finds Jesus, is born anew, and then invests his reclaimed advantages with an new-found enthusiastic appreciation for the Christian virtue that undergirds American strength and success. The fact that 9/11 was the brutal work of foreign Muslim fanatics helped elicit in many minds a coalitional contrast. We are free, we are Christian, and we will prevail. Bush’s post 9/11 rhetoric fit nicely with his narrative of salvation, and grafted on to a core element of American Christian religious identity, explicit in Mormonism, but often implied in the message of American evangelical Christianity: America is the promised land, an experiment in freedom sanctified by God, and a beacon to the world.
The odious stuff about gay marriage and stem cells is an unfortunate part of this larger, and in some ways deeply appealing, conception of American identity. The strategy of Bush’s team, as I see it, was to get people to feel or sense that the elements of this conception are organically intertwined, and must stand or fall together. By creating the sense that traditional marriage and the institution of the family as we know it are under attack, Bush evoked the sense that the entire conception is in danger, thereby evoking a jealous defense of that conception and the affiliated sense of identity.
All the facile blame-the-voters complaints about those barbarian, Bible-thumping, red-staters so easily roused by ignorant and bigoted fears of faggotry fails to even approach the deep issues of American religious and cultural identity that are the key to Bush’s victory.
Will — this was quite a good little post you drew up. I’m at pains, however, to think you were being somewhat ironic by way of a few subtler points. Take for example, “The odious stuff about gay marriage and stem cells is an unfortunate part of this larger, and in some ways deeply appealing, conception of American identity.” Wondering if you can flesh this out? And what do you mean by “in some ways deeply appealing”? Appealing from the point of view of simple folk living in “rural” heartland?
(My take is that libshit cosmopolitans — such being the environment in which, yes, even I grew up [Brentwood area of L.A.] — fail to understand that, when you get down to it, it’s really an extreme paucity of Americans who truly live the rural lifestyle; who in fact count as rural folk in the true sense of rural. The population centres of “red” America — take a typical locale, Johnson County, KS — are hardly “rural” in the sense of being “agi.” Though I’m sure to someone of such refined sensibilities as Wonkette or Matthew Yglesias, Johnson County just is “rural.” My experience is that typical elites around whom I grew up really do imagine places like Lawrence, KS to be hick-n’-pitch-fork central.)
I really want to agree with you that Bush tapped into something more valuable than bigotry and backwardness here. But sadly, I think Cottle really has it about right: the key demographic was “folks freaked out over the thought of gay marriage and stem-cell research.” What other content does this term “moral values” have that other people — you know, like all of us atheists and agnostics who aren’t out there murdering and stealing — don’t have? I’d really like to know: what moral values are they talking about, specifically? Ask them, and I’ll bet nine out of ten start talking about embryos and gays.
Rob,
Just wanted to say that I like the Johnson County and Lawrence plugs. Go Kansas!
Integrity. A word the meaning of which democrats seem wholly unable to comprehend.
Glen, It’s not so much actual values, as an ethos, an aesthetic. I think I’ll write something later today about how the right seems to “own” morality, as if Democrats are uninterested in it.
Oh – delicious post, Will. One of my favorites here. This is dangerous ground on which you tread.
I like it. It’s a fair and pleasantly unfashionable point for a DC libertarian to make.
Sure, the social- or Christian-conservative vision is coherent and has wide appeal and taps into some deep human needs and desires. The same is true of Osama bin Laden’s vision. Doesn’t make it any less repugnant.
People of reason need, for our own safety, to understand the fundies and recognize the sources of their appeal, and posts like yours are a valuable part of doing that. But the American Taliban do not deserve a single particle of our sympathy, any more than the Afghan version. It is time to stop appeasing obscurantism and start fighting it.
Also, there are more than a few of us who are and have been somewhat offended by the Democratic candidates’ seeming unwillingness to state that they have principles and stand by them. I can’t say I like most of Bush’s policies, or that as a objectivish atheist I even much like his ethics. But darn it he seems to have some, and I’d much rather a leader with some than with apparently none. Not saying that this was sufficient to vote for him, but it was definitely sufficient to prevent any serious thought of a vote for Kerry. Among friends of mine who felt the same way, some of them did end up voting for Bush. Anecdotal, but perhaps interesting.
Nicholas Weininger: “People of reason need, for our own safety, to understand the fundies and recognize the sources of their appeal, and posts like yours are a valuable part of doing that. But the American Taliban do not deserve a single particle of our sympathy, any more than the Afghan version. It is time to stop appeasing obscurantism and start fighting it.”
In a later post, Will asks liberals to read a few Left Behind books. I second that suggestion, but for a reason closer to this quote by Nicholas. I have read a few, first simply for the humor value, but the feeling they then evoked in me was what Weimar Jews probably should have felt when Mein Kampf first came out. And what I see in the evangelical blogosphere (e.g. Hugh Hewitt and especially his follower legions) tends to confirm this feeling.
With the massive success of the Left Behind books, American Christians have made their current worldview and goals perfectly explicit. Thanks to these books, I know exactly what they really think about Satan’s servants like me (for example, I have a Ph.D. and don’t believe at all that Earth is a 6,000-year-old center of universe surrounded by firmament) and what they plan to do with us. Especially as their frustration of the rapture being constantly delayed will grow and eventually overflow its weak vessel.
It is also obvious that this anti-reality gang can no longer really be appeased or reasoned with any more than Osama’s gang or the 1930′s Nazis. For those who disagree, please tell me how exactly you would reason with somebody who is psychotic enough to believe that the events of Left Behind will essentially take place within the next few years. Especially now when the re-election of Lord Bush just validated their belief of the coming epic End Times Battle.
You seem to be objecting to the anger and resentment of liberals, not to their lack of understanding of fundamentalist motivations. A lot of hurtful and bigoted things are being said on both sides. Some liberals are dismissing fundamentalists as stupid and backward. Some conservatives are slandering liberals as arrogant hypocritical elitists. Neither set of stereotypes is equivalent to a reasoned argument.
On the other hand, I can recite Christian apologetics with the best of them, but I’m holding fast to my opinion of fundamentalist ideals as backward, simplistic, and dangerous. I’m angry at people who try to impose their mystically-based beliefs on me. Moreover, I’m entitled (and maybe even required) to feel this resentment.
Lindsay, I’m not objecting to liberal anger or resentment, much of which I share. I’m objecting to what I see as a reflexive, counterproductive caricaturing of the Christian right. In fact, I think you’re wrong, or least overly broad, in holding fast to your opinion of fundamentalist ideals, most of which are no more backward, simplistic, and dangerous than “progressive” ideals. A large part of the reason that Bush won is that these people–the ones with backward, simplistic, and dangerous views–are capable of incredible competence, organization, and implementation of a well-wrought plan. The industry, energy, resolve and efficacy of these religious, Stephen Covey-toting Americans is incredibly impressive, worthy of admiration, and, I would argue, a very healthy, productive part of their conception of American identity, and something Bush successfully tapped into.
I am personally fascinated by the deep cultural link in the US between religiosity and the kind of organizational acumen that runs millions of American businesses and the 2004 election. There is a set of values here that we should respect, emulate, and attempt to detach from the illiberal elements of the right’s political identity.
I no longer get angry, exactly, at people who try to impose their moral conceptions on me (be they mystical or not). It takes too much energy. I do not dispute, however, your entitlement to anger. Go for it. Punch a pillow.
Will,
Could you fill me in on the connection between religiosity and organizational acumen. I don’t understand the connection.
Mike
I apologize for my ignorance of U.S. history but just why did Lincoln save the Union? The death and devastation wrought by the civil war was mind-boggling. In some ways, we are still fighting it. How can we say it was worth it? Why is no one presently talking about dissolving the union? Czechoslovakia recently broke into the Czech Republic and Slovakia without fanfare. As a Californian, I have little culturally in common with Southerners, I despise their ignorant religiosity and I would be glad to give them their own country. I really have no use for them. Another idea: dissolve the Union entirely and just have a loose federation of states like the former Soviet Union. If it weren’t for the cold weather, I’d make a beeline for Canada. Maybe, I’ll treat myself to a new parka and move there anyway; Will seemed to enjoy his recent trip there. Will, think you’d like living there on a permanent basis? (Btw, I like your travelogues very much.)
I have just one more thing to say. Many people voted for that belligerent dummy Bush because they thought he would better protect us from terrorism. I feel far less safe. Would we not be safer if we were no longer the sole super power in the world. This is a strong argument (in my opinion) for dissolving the Union in one form or another. Wouldn’t No. Korea and Iran and the Muslim fanatics have less to fear if the U.S. were broken into pieces? The U.N. can and should police the world and fight the terrorists. The U.S. as a country just has to go. I’ve convinced myself at least.
“How can we say it was worth it? Why is no one presently talking about dissolving the union?”
As to the first question, many Libertarians don’t think it was worth it. As to the second, because the precedent has been set. Personally, I’d be all for it.
“As a Californian, I have little culturally in common with Southerners, I despise their ignorant religiosity and I would be glad to give them their own country. I really have no use for them.”
What aspect of democratic theory necessitates having something culturally in common with your neighbors? Regardless, your condescending stereotyping of Southerners is exactly what they expect from a Californian, and perhaps, why Kerry lost the election in the first place.
“Would we not be safer if we were no longer the sole super power in the world. This is a strong argument (in my opinion) for dissolving the Union in one form or another.”
Simple rhetorical questions–with or without question marks–do not strong arguments make. Do you realize the irony you exhibit when you call Southerners idiots?
Scotty Boy,
Your comment/insult wasn’t clever at all. Religious people (from the NSEW) are basically fools and I don’t want to be ruled by them. Are you one of them?
I brought up the idea of breaking up the country so that there might be some intelligent comments. I see that I’m not going to get any, at least not from you. Do you reside (that means live) in the Bible Belt and pray to Jesus. Did you get off on the Passion of the Christ? I thought so!
I should say that people who are religious are foolish in that aspect of their lives. The more religion is an integral part of their lives the bigger a fool they are. Remember 9/11? The religious fanatics should be killed before they kill us. The biggest creepy fool of all lives in the Whitehouse and gives tax breaks to the wealthy and ease restrictions on polluters and coddles Halliburton. Some kind of old-time religion, huh? Immorality was an issue in the election and their names are Shrubya/Cheney/The Hammer.
Anonymous Douche,
“Do you reside (that means live) in the Bible Belt and pray to Jesus.”
Assuming that’s a question (maybe periods denote interrogatories in CA), the answer is no, I live in New Jersey, and currently go to school in DC. I’m an atheist. This proves that one doesn’t need a deity to realize you’re a moron.
If you want intelligent commentary, it’s better to prime the pump with an intelligent question, not a jumble of ad hominem immaturity.
Scott Scheule, so you’re a heathen, pagan, atheist are you? What is your address in D.C. (we’ll find you no matter what) so we can take your evil self into custody and burn your satanic soul at the stake? Rot in hell you Devil!!!
Nicholas,
I’ll accept your use of the phrase “American Taliban” when Christian conservatives start committing atrocities like these.
In the meantime, a commitment accuracy would require that you to take back your blatant slander.
I’m an atheist and a libertarian–not a member of the religious right by any definition–but asserting that American religious conservatives are the equivalent of the Taliban is the same as saying that a common bigot is no different from a member of the SS. It’s just not right.
The word “these” was supposed to be linked to this e-mail address:
usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Al_Qaeda_and_Taliban_Atrocities.html
What is your problem, Chuck? A man from Oklahoma, who believes in executing “abortionists”, was just elected to the Senate of the U.S.. Are you blind to the ongoing war, IN THIS COUNTRY, between modern, scientific, civilized humanistic thought and religious fanaticism and barbarism. And, have you so easily forgotten the bombings of Women’s health clinics and killings of doctors by homicidal Christian loonies. Don’t you realize that religious intolerance is the historical trademark of Christianity and Islam? Bush’s election ploy to push for altering the Constitution to make bigotry the law of the land doesn’t bother you.? Chuck, take back your blatant slander of Nicholas; it’s just not right!
Even if I weren’t a Christian, I might take pleasure in calling myself one, since a simple profession of Christian faith is, evidently, enough to induce anile paroxysms of terror in certain members of the self-appointed intellectual elite.
Pingback: Eternal Recurrence
Will — this was quite a good little post you drew up. I’m at pains, however, to think you were being somewhat ironic by way of a few subtler points. Take for example, “The odious stuff about gay marriage and stem cells is an unfortunate part of this larger, and in some ways deeply appealing, conception of American identity.” Wondering if you can flesh this out? And what do you mean by “in some ways deeply appealing”? Appealing from the point of view of simple folk living in “rural” heartland?
(My take is that libshit cosmopolitans — such being the environment in which, yes, even I grew up [Brentwood area of L.A.] — fail to understand that, when you get down to it, it’s really an extreme paucity of Americans who truly live the rural lifestyle; who in fact count as rural folk in the true sense of rural. The population centres of “red” America — take a typical locale, Johnson County, KS — are hardly “rural” in the sense of being “agi.” Though I’m sure to someone of such refined sensibilities as Wonkette or Matthew Yglesias, Johnson County just is “rural.” My experience is that typical elites around whom I grew up really do imagine places like Lawrence, KS to be hick-n’-pitch-fork central.)
I really want to agree with you that Bush tapped into something more valuable than bigotry and backwardness here. But sadly, I think Cottle really has it about right: the key demographic was “folks freaked out over the thought of gay marriage and stem-cell research.” What other content does this term “moral values” have that other people — you know, like all of us atheists and agnostics who aren’t out there murdering and stealing — don’t have? I’d really like to know: what moral values are they talking about, specifically? Ask them, and I’ll bet nine out of ten start talking about embryos and gays.
Rob,
Just wanted to say that I like the Johnson County and Lawrence plugs. Go Kansas!
Integrity. A word the meaning of which democrats seem wholly unable to comprehend.
Glen, It’s not so much actual values, as an ethos, an aesthetic. I think I’ll write something later today about how the right seems to “own” morality, as if Democrats are uninterested in it.
Oh – delicious post, Will. One of my favorites here. This is dangerous ground on which you tread.
I like it. It’s a fair and pleasantly unfashionable point for a DC libertarian to make.
Sure, the social- or Christian-conservative vision is coherent and has wide appeal and taps into some deep human needs and desires. The same is true of Osama bin Laden’s vision. Doesn’t make it any less repugnant.
People of reason need, for our own safety, to understand the fundies and recognize the sources of their appeal, and posts like yours are a valuable part of doing that. But the American Taliban do not deserve a single particle of our sympathy, any more than the Afghan version. It is time to stop appeasing obscurantism and start fighting it.
Also, there are more than a few of us who are and have been somewhat offended by the Democratic candidates’ seeming unwillingness to state that they have principles and stand by them. I can’t say I like most of Bush’s policies, or that as a objectivish atheist I even much like his ethics. But darn it he seems to have some, and I’d much rather a leader with some than with apparently none. Not saying that this was sufficient to vote for him, but it was definitely sufficient to prevent any serious thought of a vote for Kerry. Among friends of mine who felt the same way, some of them did end up voting for Bush. Anecdotal, but perhaps interesting.
Nicholas Weininger: “People of reason need, for our own safety, to understand the fundies and recognize the sources of their appeal, and posts like yours are a valuable part of doing that. But the American Taliban do not deserve a single particle of our sympathy, any more than the Afghan version. It is time to stop appeasing obscurantism and start fighting it.”
In a later post, Will asks liberals to read a few Left Behind books. I second that suggestion, but for a reason closer to this quote by Nicholas. I have read a few, first simply for the humor value, but the feeling they then evoked in me was what Weimar Jews probably should have felt when Mein Kampf first came out. And what I see in the evangelical blogosphere (e.g. Hugh Hewitt and especially his follower legions) tends to confirm this feeling.
With the massive success of the Left Behind books, American Christians have made their current worldview and goals perfectly explicit. Thanks to these books, I know exactly what they really think about Satan’s servants like me (for example, I have a Ph.D. and don’t believe at all that Earth is a 6,000-year-old center of universe surrounded by firmament) and what they plan to do with us. Especially as their frustration of the rapture being constantly delayed will grow and eventually overflow its weak vessel.
It is also obvious that this anti-reality gang can no longer really be appeased or reasoned with any more than Osama’s gang or the 1930′s Nazis. For those who disagree, please tell me how exactly you would reason with somebody who is psychotic enough to believe that the events of Left Behind will essentially take place within the next few years. Especially now when the re-election of Lord Bush just validated their belief of the coming epic End Times Battle.
You seem to be objecting to the anger and resentment of liberals, not to their lack of understanding of fundamentalist motivations. A lot of hurtful and bigoted things are being said on both sides. Some liberals are dismissing fundamentalists as stupid and backward. Some conservatives are slandering liberals as arrogant hypocritical elitists. Neither set of stereotypes is equivalent to a reasoned argument.
On the other hand, I can recite Christian apologetics with the best of them, but I’m holding fast to my opinion of fundamentalist ideals as backward, simplistic, and dangerous. I’m angry at people who try to impose their mystically-based beliefs on me. Moreover, I’m entitled (and maybe even required) to feel this resentment.
Lindsay, I’m not objecting to liberal anger or resentment, much of which I share. I’m objecting to what I see as a reflexive, counterproductive caricaturing of the Christian right. In fact, I think you’re wrong, or least overly broad, in holding fast to your opinion of fundamentalist ideals, most of which are no more backward, simplistic, and dangerous than “progressive” ideals. A large part of the reason that Bush won is that these people–the ones with backward, simplistic, and dangerous views–are capable of incredible competence, organization, and implementation of a well-wrought plan. The industry, energy, resolve and efficacy of these religious, Stephen Covey-toting Americans is incredibly impressive, worthy of admiration, and, I would argue, a very healthy, productive part of their conception of American identity, and something Bush successfully tapped into.
I am personally fascinated by the deep cultural link in the US between religiosity and the kind of organizational acumen that runs millions of American businesses and the 2004 election. There is a set of values here that we should respect, emulate, and attempt to detach from the illiberal elements of the right’s political identity.
I no longer get angry, exactly, at people who try to impose their moral conceptions on me (be they mystical or not). It takes too much energy. I do not dispute, however, your entitlement to anger. Go for it. Punch a pillow.
Will,
Could you fill me in on the connection between religiosity and organizational acumen. I don’t understand the connection.
Mike
I apologize for my ignorance of U.S. history but just why did Lincoln save the Union? The death and devastation wrought by the civil war was mind-boggling. In some ways, we are still fighting it. How can we say it was worth it? Why is no one presently talking about dissolving the union? Czechoslovakia recently broke into the Czech Republic and Slovakia without fanfare. As a Californian, I have little culturally in common with Southerners, I despise their ignorant religiosity and I would be glad to give them their own country. I really have no use for them. Another idea: dissolve the Union entirely and just have a loose federation of states like the former Soviet Union. If it weren’t for the cold weather, I’d make a beeline for Canada. Maybe, I’ll treat myself to a new parka and move there anyway; Will seemed to enjoy his recent trip there. Will, think you’d like living there on a permanent basis? (Btw, I like your travelogues very much.)
I have just one more thing to say. Many people voted for that belligerent dummy Bush because they thought he would better protect us from terrorism. I feel far less safe. Would we not be safer if we were no longer the sole super power in the world. This is a strong argument (in my opinion) for dissolving the Union in one form or another. Wouldn’t No. Korea and Iran and the Muslim fanatics have less to fear if the U.S. were broken into pieces? The U.N. can and should police the world and fight the terrorists. The U.S. as a country just has to go. I’ve convinced myself at least.
“How can we say it was worth it? Why is no one presently talking about dissolving the union?”
As to the first question, many Libertarians don’t think it was worth it. As to the second, because the precedent has been set. Personally, I’d be all for it.
“As a Californian, I have little culturally in common with Southerners, I despise their ignorant religiosity and I would be glad to give them their own country. I really have no use for them.”
What aspect of democratic theory necessitates having something culturally in common with your neighbors? Regardless, your condescending stereotyping of Southerners is exactly what they expect from a Californian, and perhaps, why Kerry lost the election in the first place.
“Would we not be safer if we were no longer the sole super power in the world. This is a strong argument (in my opinion) for dissolving the Union in one form or another.”
Simple rhetorical questions–with or without question marks–do not strong arguments make. Do you realize the irony you exhibit when you call Southerners idiots?
Scotty Boy,
Your comment/insult wasn’t clever at all. Religious people (from the NSEW) are basically fools and I don’t want to be ruled by them. Are you one of them?
I brought up the idea of breaking up the country so that there might be some intelligent comments. I see that I’m not going to get any, at least not from you. Do you reside (that means live) in the Bible Belt and pray to Jesus. Did you get off on the Passion of the Christ? I thought so!
I should say that people who are religious are foolish in that aspect of their lives. The more religion is an integral part of their lives the bigger a fool they are. Remember 9/11? The religious fanatics should be killed before they kill us. The biggest creepy fool of all lives in the Whitehouse and gives tax breaks to the wealthy and ease restrictions on polluters and coddles Halliburton. Some kind of old-time religion, huh? Immorality was an issue in the election and their names are Shrubya/Cheney/The Hammer.
Anonymous Douche,
“Do you reside (that means live) in the Bible Belt and pray to Jesus.”
Assuming that’s a question (maybe periods denote interrogatories in CA), the answer is no, I live in New Jersey, and currently go to school in DC. I’m an atheist. This proves that one doesn’t need a deity to realize you’re a moron.
If you want intelligent commentary, it’s better to prime the pump with an intelligent question, not a jumble of ad hominem immaturity.
Scott Scheule, so you’re a heathen, pagan, atheist are you? What is your address in D.C. (we’ll find you no matter what) so we can take your evil self into custody and burn your satanic soul at the stake? Rot in hell you Devil!!!
Nicholas,
I’ll accept your use of the phrase “American Taliban” when Christian conservatives start committing atrocities like these.
In the meantime, a commitment accuracy would require that you to take back your blatant slander.
I’m an atheist and a libertarian–not a member of the religious right by any definition–but asserting that American religious conservatives are the equivalent of the Taliban is the same as saying that a common bigot is no different from a member of the SS. It’s just not right.
The word “these” was supposed to be linked to this e-mail address:
usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Al_Qaeda_and_Taliban_Atrocities.html
What is your problem, Chuck? A man from Oklahoma, who believes in executing “abortionists”, was just elected to the Senate of the U.S.. Are you blind to the ongoing war, IN THIS COUNTRY, between modern, scientific, civilized humanistic thought and religious fanaticism and barbarism. And, have you so easily forgotten the bombings of Women’s health clinics and killings of doctors by homicidal Christian loonies. Don’t you realize that religious intolerance is the historical trademark of Christianity and Islam? Bush’s election ploy to push for altering the Constitution to make bigotry the law of the land doesn’t bother you.? Chuck, take back your blatant slander of Nicholas; it’s just not right!
Even if I weren’t a Christian, I might take pleasure in calling myself one, since a simple profession of Christian faith is, evidently, enough to induce anile paroxysms of terror in certain members of the self-appointed intellectual elite.