Fear not the great cultural/political clampdown, for it isn't coming.
I voted for Bush but I am a social liberal, an economic and environmental moderate, and a strong believer in the separation of church and state. Based upon what I have been told by many on both sides of the Great Divide, I should be very concerned about what the 2004 election results say about our nation, a result to which I contributed with my vote.…
Article comments
26 - curt
andy,
ok, it's safe to burn your copy of "unfit for command" now...
"mission accomplished" (as your guy would say)
hehehehehh
27 - andy marsh
I gave it to my pop...he loved it!
28 - Eric Olsen
alethinos59, thanks a very good point, once unleashed memes often take on lives of their own and won't be controlled by those who unleashed them. In this case, though, there just isn't wide enough support for the more radical aspects of the agenda
29 - Bob A. Booey
I appreciate all the research, Olsen. Excellent job finding the maps and everything else -- I only wish your view of foreign policy and Iraq were as nuanced, careful, and evidenced.
None of what you cite disproves the culture thesis, really. Rich's arguments are mostly anecdotal and don't address the fundamental differences over gays and Rove's stated strategy to turn out the evangelical base in 2004. The maps don't disprove the culture thesis either -- urban dwellers lean Democratic (not only because of higher minority population) and suburban and collar counties are Republican targets. This is old news to anyone who's spent any time analyzing politics. The vast sea of red states in the South and rural West point to historical differences that go back to culture. Clinton and Carter won the more moderate of those red states because they were, for all intents and purposes, cultural conservatives when it came to religious values and race in the eyes of white voters.
I can write a lot more about this. The main reason the election went the way it did is because Bush was the far better candidate with the far better team. Kerry couldn't communicate domestic policy in a way that connected with women, minorities, or the elderly, sine qua non of Democratic candidates. But the fact of the matter is that Kerry lost because he couldn't overcome cultural obstacles due to his weakness as a candidate. Kerry could have and should have won despite the cultural obstacles due to Bush's many failures in policy.
I don't think the cultural thesis is sufficient and leaves out a lot of the story in this election. However, it does point to enduring social cleavages that have been overlooked in many discussions of modern elections and reminds us of how fundamentally conservative a nation America is. Good strategists like Karl Rove and Dick Morris know all about this. Bad ones like Mary Beth Cahill and Bob Shrum don't. I think it's a mistake -- and clearly resented by much of the Heartland in America -- for liberals who backed Kerry to dismissively point to "red stater mentalities" since that's too facile an explanation and the very thinking that lost Democrats the election.
I can get way deeper into this.
A good reading suggestion for you all: Thomas Frank's new book. I think it's called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" or "What's Wrong with Kansas?" that's specifically about this issue: why populism died in America and why blue-collar or working Americans in the Midwest and South have now become reliably Republican voters.
That is all.
30 - Eric Olsen
I disagree that Clinton was perceived as cultural conservatives, especially regarding race. He was able to enact welfare refrom specifically because he was perceived as a social liberal - triangulation, Nixon in China-type stuff