Jewish World Review Nov. 5, 2004 / 21 Mar-Cheshvan, 5765

Rich Lowry

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The values election | On nearly every TV political chat-fest, journalists and Democrats are asking themselves with puzzled or plaintive expressions on their faces: "Values? What are these so-called 'values'? And how do we get some?"

The convincing Bush victory Tuesday was partly driven by moral issues. More voters (22 percent) said they cared about those issues than any other concern, including the economy (20 percent), terrorism (19 percent) and Iraq (15 percent). Those values-voters broke for Bush 80 percent to 18 percent, a wipeout that did much to secure his victory. So we are due another of those periodic moments when the chattering class discovers the strange continued existence of Christians and other exotic beings inhabiting locales not in New York, Los Angeles or Washington, D.C.

In a "values" discussion on CNN the other night, the Republican governor of Nebraska was queried and probed as if he were from another planet: "Bipedal, carbon-based life forms in Nebraska are sexually dimorphic and pair off in long-term commitments called — forgive me if I mispronounce this — 'marriage'? Can you please describe, in as simple terms as possible, the concept of barbecue? Who is Brooks? And if I may follow up quickly, who is Dunn?"

It is extraordinary that liberals constantly forget about these voters, since their entire political strategy is based on them — getting around them, that is. The liberal reliance on the courts to effect social change is entirely driven by the fact that most of the country is not keen on social liberalism. Indeed, Tuesday's biggest loser was the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In its eagerness to slam gay marriage down the throats of Massachusetts — and, by extension, the rest of the country — it prompted a populist backlash that benefited President Bush.

Donate to JWR

All 11 state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this week. All but nine passed with more than 60 percent of the vote. In the crucial swing state of Ohio, support for the anti-gay-marriage amendment juiced up turnout in the GOP south and west of the state, and nudged swing voters in the Appalachian southeast Bush's way. According to one estimate, one-fourth of Ohio voters identified themselves as born-again Christians, and they voted for Bush by a 3-1 margin.

Liberals will try to dodge the import of these results. Already there are complaints about the supposed stupidity of voters concentrating on moral issues when there are so many more urgent concerns. What about global warming? The minimum wage? But for many people, faith is an existential commitment. Expecting them to put their religious convictions aside in the voting booth — especially when they consider those convictions under assault by unelected judges — is simply to misunderstand faith's power.

The election suggests Democrats should make some adjustments. First, nominate candidates who partake of the cultural sensibility of most voters. Ken Salazar, who won a Colorado Senate seat for the Democrats, is a bright spot for them this year. He has a rural background, wears cowboy hats and bolo ties, and has never been seen windsurfing. Second, be more moderate on the social issues. Abortion-on-demand in every possible circumstance shouldn't be holy writ, and gay marriage will have to wait. Third, ground liberal positions in the deepest ethical imperatives of traditional religion. This is what Illinois senator-to-be Barack Obama did in his moving address at the Democratic Convention (and it has been a key to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's political success).

Finally, it would be a mistake to draw a straight line between the votes of those people who say moral issues were important to them and the president's positions on abortion and other hot buttons. They were probably swayed as well by his intangibles — his authenticity, his toughness, his instinctive patriotism, his disdain for elite affectation. Those are qualities that can't be faked, and Democrats will never value them properly until they truly value — instead of misunderstand and disdain — fly-over-country moral-issues voters. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said the best way to convince people you like them ... is to actually like them.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and the media consider must-reading. Sign up for our daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment by clicking here.

11/02/04: The Kerry recovery
10/29/04: The Ohio insurance policy
10/26/04: The provisional-vote scam
10/22/04: The Florida lie
10/19/04: How government created the vaccine crisis
10/15/04: Kerry's strange respect
10/12/04: Senator, you're no Reagan
10/11/04: Tora Bora bull
10/05/04: The debate that wasn't
09/29/04: Momma gets tough
09/24/04: The GOP's demographic problem
09/21/04: Kerry's Iraq gambit
09/20/04: Questions for Dan Rather
09/14/04: John Kerry, explained
09/10/04: The unfathomable human toll
09/08/04: W the Bold
09/03/04: Loud and proud
09/03/04: The candidate of change?
08/27/04: The McCain myth
08/24/04: Kerry refuses to admit that he burst onto the national scene by telling a shameful falsehood about American servicemen
08/20/04: The war on obstetrics
08/17/04: And now it's ‘Tommy Franks lied’?

© 2004, King Features Syndicate