The myth of the bigoted Christian redneck

Antifederalist

Regular Member
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
The People's Republic of New Jersey
Ethnic group
European mutt
The myth of the bigoted Christian redneck
Charles Krauthammer
www.townhall.com

November 12, 2004 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

WASHINGTON -- In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: ``Angry White Men: Their votes turned the tide for the GOP.''

Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election, there were 53 Nexis mentions of angry white men in the media. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of The New York Times -- Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Maureen Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to ``isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism'' in their unfailing drive to ``summon our nasty devils.''

Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African-Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that ``moral values'' ranked highest in the answer to Question J: ``Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?''

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:
-- Education, 4 percent
-- Taxes, 5 percent
-- Health Care, 8 percent
-- Iraq, 15 percent
-- Terrorism, 19 percent
-- Economy and Jobs, 20 percent
-- Moral Values, 22 percent

``Moral values'' encompasses abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture, and, for some, the morality of pre-emptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: ``war issues'' or ``foreign policy issues'' (Iraq plus terrorism) and ``economic issues'' (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

And we know that this is the real ranking. After all, the exit poll is just a single poll. We had dozens of polls in the run-up to the election that showed that the chief concerns were the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the economy.

Ah, yes. But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

This is more nonsense. George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals, and from infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and cannot have it cut off by mere facts. And so once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.
 
Fantt said:
I just hear the sound that Charlie Brown's teachers made: *wah wah, wahwah wah*
lol :)

C'mon you guys (angry, white, redneck and otherwise) won already. Stop gloating. Repeat after me: "Liberals and the liberal media are out of touch with mainstream america." repeat again and again until it is true.
 
Hmm, there is something about the word liberal that really gets to Americans, sometimes I quite don't get it. You would have to see some social benefits here in Europe in order to understand what left side politics are all about like paying 50 instead of 500 $ for a visit to the dentist.
 
It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:
-- Education, 4 percent
-- Taxes, 5 percent
-- Health Care, 8 percent
-- Iraq, 15 percent
-- Terrorism, 19 percent
-- Economy and Jobs, 20 percent
-- Moral Values, 22 percent

``Moral values'' encompasses abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture, and, for some, the morality of pre-emptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: ``war issues'' or ``foreign policy issues'' (Iraq plus terrorism) and ``economic issues'' (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.
I've heard similar reportage, from the Pew Center in particular. For instance when voters were asked in subsequent studies to make an open ended list of their most important issues, only 14 percent reported "moral values" at the top while the war and terrorism were around 20% or so followed by domestic problems.
 
Duo said:
Hmm, there is something about the word liberal that really gets to Americans, sometimes I quite don't get it. You would have to see some social benefits here in Europe in order to understand what left side politics are all about like paying 50 instead of 500 $ for a visit to the dentist.

I pay $5 for a dentist visit.
 
Antifederalist said:
I pay $5 for a dentist visit.

I'm sure your employer or you pay monthly for some insurance. I'd hate to see what a real $5 visit would be like.

By the way, you pay taxes, you get services. Government and its functions costs money. Unless you want marines in fallujah throwing rocks and running around in their underwear, you pay taxes. Those policemen and firemen and the road you drive on, schools, teachers, the FDA that was supposed to keep your drugs safe, the national weather service, the park service, medicare, social security, the people that inspect fruit, NASA...they all need your tax money. This is why the second thing this Republican congress did was to raise the debt celing to $800 billion. (But they are promising to make those tax cuts permanent?) The first was to relax ethics rules so that indicted Republicans can keep their posts.
 

This thread has been viewed 663 times.

Back
Top