Rather than fisk Maureen Dowd's latest effort which reminds me strongly of the, possibly apocryphal, employee review comment "since last time she has hit a new low and continues to dig", I thought I should fisk this Bob Herbert one pointed out to me by Michelle Malkin.
Voting Without the Facts
By BOB HERBERT Published: November 8, 2004
I prefer my title
The so-called values issue, at least as it's being popularly tossed around, is overrated.
Yep it is, I like starting off agreeing with my fiskee and I'm glad to say that I agree with your first line. Mind you David Brooks said it better a couple of days earlier in the same newspaper but that's merely quibbling
Last week's election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. ...If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn't been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. ... Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. ...
Ok end of agreement. The election was close but given the increased proportion of eligeable people who voted blaming it on low turnout seems rather silly. Michelle demolished that argument and I can't beat her demolition, I'll just point out that the insinuation that the Democrats had longer polling waits than their Republican fellow voters requires some justification to be more than just a groundless smear.
I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.
Surprisingly I agree with the first sentence in this paragraph. But I think the ignorance applied more to the anti-war voters and hacks like Mr Herbert than those who voted for Bush. Despite Mr Herbert's denials there is evidence (as reported in the Sept 11 enquiry) that Iraq did have ties with Al Qaeda and the Iraq Survey Group found all sorts of WMD precursors and other things prohibited under the various UN resolutions. Not to mention the sarin shell used as an IED, the mustard gas found by the Poles etc. etc. So unlike Mr Herbert those who believe these facts are not in fact ignorant.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
Indeed Mr Herbert. When people like you have put their brain on hold it is indeed impossible to make a rational political argument that will be listened to.
The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, "It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him."
Of course you don't say what the misperceptions are. Fortunately Mr Google comes to the rescue of the inquiring mind and shows us the document at a site called pipa.org. That document has the following interesting indroductory paragraph which makes me realise that the rest of it is clearly written with a certain attitude... Since shortly after the Iraq war, PIPA has regularly asked Americans about their perceptions as to whether before the war Iraq had WMD, and whether it provided substantial support to al Qaeda. To a striking extent, majorities have believed that Iraq did have WMD or at least a major program for developing them, and that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. With the reports of David Kay, the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, most recently, Charles Duelfer all refuting these beliefs, they have only modestly diminished, and are still held by approximately half of the public. It is interesting that I was able to read "the reports of David Kay, the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, most recently, Charles Duelfer" and find evidence supporting precisely those beliefs which PIPA and Bob Herbert say are misperceptions.
I haven't heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It's all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can't stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.
This is interesting, in that while it is true that few mainstream commentators have been st00pid enough to call 51% of Americans ignorant, that hasn't stopped numerous Dimocratic weblogs and the like from doing precisely that. And of course as well as being insulting it is also flat out wrong in its proposed solution: Kerry's frequent visits to churches during tha campaign didn't exactly help him...
A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.
One could restate that as "Ve have vays of makink you belief us" aka forcing the proles into re-education camps filled with propaganda. Of course seeing as Democrats have tried doing precisely that with free copies of Tubby Riefenstahl's Fahrenheit 911 and it didn't work one wonders just how this tactic is expected to work for the next time.
If you don't think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.
"Christians, in politics as in evangelism," said Mr. Pastore, "are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology."
Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them "to compromise with the vanquished." How's that for values?
In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, "Now comes the revolution." He said, "Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to 'unite' the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years."
Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.
Unfortunately it has to be admitted that their are indeed Rightwingnuts around although it is unclear how much influence these people actually have on Kkkarl Rove and his puppet, who seem to be ever so slightly more rational. On the other hand neither of the statements quoted above is exactly saying what Bob Herbert thinks it is and one rather suspects that had Kerry won, some very similar comments would be emanating from Messrs Herbert, Krugman etc.
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?
From the evidence of the last couple of years it seems that those voters with repellant views were A.N.S.W.E.R and the other appeasniks. I agree the Democrats should not be going after such voters.
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.
Again I agree. This was precisely the problem with Kerry and his candidacy. He showed no integrity, failed to earn any respect or affection and he couldn't ennunciate a clear message if his life depended on it.
This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.
What the Democrats don't need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits' probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.
The conclusion has points that I can only agree with. Gore and Kerry were horrible candidates and Bush was emminently beatable. So why spend 90% of the column telling us that Bush's supporters are ignorant and that they are nasty? Oh yes of course, because it helps fill out the column so you can be paid and because insulting people is standard practise for "liberals" apparently, silly me how could I have forgotten.