Say Anything Blog

John Leo.

As I recall, John Leo once wrote about an interview with Howard Dean.

The problem was, he never interviewed Howard Dean.  Instead, what Leo did was take excerpts from Dean speeches and other interviews and then placed his own questions in front of them.

It hasn’t been debunked, Gary.

Of course, Leo’s simplistic contention is that liberals simply have no values.  And, frankly, it’s a theme that plays well among the extreme right.

BTW, Leo takes Hacker’s comment completely out of context; in reality Hacker noted the Bush campaign’s real theme was to make voters feel virtuous about being greedy and bigoted.

Oh yes, the “values vote” myth of the 2004 election.  Are we still selling that snake oil here after it has been thoroughly debunked over and over again?* When the hell are people going to realize that this meme just won’t hunt?

*Compare the so-called “values vote” with the “national defense” vote.  You’ll find rather quickly that the latter swamps the former almost 2-1.  And there is also the problem of assume that the “values voters” wer all voting for Bush, which they weren’t.  Liberals and conservatives prostituting this particular meme need to get a clue.

All

Moral values - 27

Iraq - 22

Economy/Jobs - 21

Terrorism - 14

This merely illustrates my point.  And varying polls have varying percentages.  The take away message here is that “moral values” were hardly the sweeping concern that some liberal and conservative pundits made it out to be.

An analysis of the internals behind the “moral values” choice further illustrates my point.  You can find such analyses across the web.

Jadegold,

If the “national security” vote (38%) was almost 2-1 larger than the “values vote” (19%), which it was, what does that tell you about the latter?  It tells you that the latter wasn’t remotely as important as pundits - both liberal and conservative - have tried to make it out to be. 

Essentially, within a day of the election, many people stupidly jumped on one election number without either dissecting that election number or looking at in relation of election numbers.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm

Again, Gary, it’s very true the percentages vary depending on the poll and how the “morals/values” question was asked.

But, once more, you have to look at the results; evangelical fundies are getting into the Plum Book.  Monies are being directed toward religious groups and organizations. Political capital is being spent on issues we agree aren’t going anywhere.

Jadegold,

And irrational religionists have always had their finger in the pie.  We today generally have the greatest freedom from religion this country has ever witnessed.

Jadegold,

If they are so variant, then it seems to me that making an argument based on them is fairly strange.

Rob,

And as we all know, the opinion of the majority is always right.

I have the bitterness of an individual who wished the liberal and conservative elites would leave me the hell alone.

A pox on both their houses.

likwidshoe,

Its more like they lack the vocabulary of right and wrong as seen by religious conservatives.  Of course such “morality” is easily snickered at, given how it loathes homosexuals, atheism, secularity, etc. 

Of course, I am quite sure that to both a liberal and a conservative I am a very immoral person; but I don’t view myself as immoral, I simply don’t believe in the sex and other behavioral codes of the right or the economic and other behavioral codes of the left. 

Anyway, the idea that liberal and conservative elites aren’t equally guilty of sneering at one another is flat out ridiculous.  Each views their place in the sun as special after all.

I was going to mention something about this article.  The proceeding quote is one that I think sums up the problem liberals face today:

Many Americans notice that liberalism nowadays lacks a vocabulary of right and wrong, declines to discuss virtue except in snickering terms, and seems increasingly hostile to prevailing moral sentiments.