- Obama mulls support for Islamists in Syria, with conditions
- Obama ‘birther’ theories float, as Hawaii health director killed in crash
- U.S. drone faulted for killing 14 ‘innocent civilians’ at Yemen wedding
- GOP hopes taking shutdown off the table with budget deal will pay dividends
- Chinese Death Star: The moon cited as the perfect launch pad for ballistic missiles
- Help wanted: Homeland Security plagued by vacancies at the top
- We are not amused: Queen’s protection officers warned to keep ‘sticky fingers’ off the royal cashews
- Unleash the crossbows: Gov. Scott Walker creates new hunting season
- Bubonic plague kills 20 in Madagascar
- G-20 diplomats fell for hacker attack promising nude photos of former French first lady Carla Bruni
Appeal of moral clarity
The debate about “moral values” in the past election is the mixed green salad of politics — healthy and maybe colorful but unsatisfying in digesting the meat and potatoes of the American electorate. Dismissed by the left as a meaningless catchall phrase, liberal journalists and a host of academics continue to attack the exit poll findings suggesting that moral values was the most important issue for voters. Citing the broadness of the question, the hysterical dissembling persists, as those denying moral values could possibly drive voting decisions burn the exit poll results in ideological effigy.
Some conservative also overreached by concluding moral values was only evidence of a popular mandate for high-visibility social issues like abortion and opposition to gay marriage.
But both the left and right missed another critical piece of election 2004’s broader mosaic.
“Something else is going on,” a Republican strategist with close ties to the Bush campaign told me. “Liberals miss it because they completely discount moral values and conservatives define it too narrowly. But there is another group of values voters out there that don’t necessarily define themselves as pro-life or anti-gay marriage, but thought President Bush better represented the kind of leader they wanted to navigate through the current cultural fog.” Another Senate Republican aide agreed: “I have a sense that these voters are married women with kids and maybe grandparents, increasingly concerned about the moral climate and choices faced by their children. They may not be conservatives or even Republicans, but they are very troubled by the continued coarsening of society and the kinds of forces influencing their kids.
Parents and grandparents believe the moral choices facing their children are exponentially more complex than a generation ago. In this environment, the president’s atavistic reliance on faith and prayer were reassuring in an age where most societal institutions from schools to movies to entertainers lost their values moorings. And while media elites scoffed at Mr. Bush’s frequent references to his faith, values voters saw him as man pursuing a moral code despite being ridiculed by those who considered his worldview simplistic. Yet for many, his simplicity was an oasis in an ethical desert.
Polling data supports this view. When asked which candidate could lead culture in the way it should be moving, Mr. Bush enjoyed a 6 percent edge over Sen. John Kerry in a September survey. But when the same question was posed to voters with kids, Mr. Bush’s advantage jumped to 36 percent.
For values voters, John Kerry was an ethical foil to Mr. Bush. He was a Catholic, but didn’t want to impose his values on others. He believed life began at conception yet supported unimpeded abortion rights. He indulged comedians like Whoopi Goldberg deriding Mr. Bush, making vulgar sexual references about his name, but said these were the voices of ordinary Americans. He became what voters feared: Values vertigo incarnate.
Add to this the overwhelming support from the same individuals many Americans viewed as the cause of values vertigo, like Michael Moore, and Mr. Kerry concocted a formula for failure.
Determining what motivates these values voters is an important question for Republicans interested in broadening their electoral coalition. But addressing these voters’ concerns is tricky and it’s unclear if the legislative process is the best place to do it. Clearly some social issues should be fought out in Congress. But using the White House bully pulpit for others may be an even more effective tactic.
The president’s role as “teacher” and “advocate” may do a lot more than Congress trying to improve moral coarseness or lifting the moral fog. To paraphrase St. Augustine, “The laws cannot command all virtue and forbid all vice.” A Republican Senate aide agreed: “I think the president speaking out on key issues and convening conferences at the White House or directives through his cabinet departments is the best way to address these issues.” Denials on the left notwithstanding, Republicans broke new ground this year attracting values voters who viewed Mr. Bush’s moral clarity not as simple-minded, but as an antidote to everyday values vertigo. Clearly people of faith concerned about creating a culture of life and opposed to judges redefining marriage helped re-elect Mr. Bush. But his moral clarity also appealed to others struggling with the flood of choices and influences bombarding kids everyday, trying to keep focused on our better angels.
By Mangosuthu Buthelezi
Memories of a long brotherhood tempered in common struggle
- House budget bargain faces Senate filibuster; Republicans line up to oppose
- Broncos-Chargers game ends with several stabbings
- Obama's Afghanistan experts stumped on U.S. death toll, war costs during hearing
- NAPOLITANO: A conspiracy so vast
- Kim Jong-un consolidating power or losing grip on North Korea's military
- Inside China: Ukraine gets nuclear umbrella
- Echoes of Cold War in Ukraine as Russia tries to rein in former Soviet satellites
- PRUDEN: The last living witnesses; they wore the yellow star and remember the Nazi terror
- American missing in Iran was CIA operative who went rogue - Washington Times#pagebreak#pagebreak
- Medicare pays full price for half-empty vials of medicine
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Consummate traveler Todd DeFeo explores the unique stories that make destinations worth going to.
Covering the world of soccer, including the World Cup, Major League Soccer, D.C. United and the English Premier League and other interesting sporting events.
Born in 1930 in rural Missouri, Charles Vandegriffe, Sr., brings his time and place to the Communities.
Columns from Voices around the World talking about the events, people, politics and social issues that concern us wherever, and whoever, we are.
Extraordinary day at Redskins Park
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow