Voters less values-oriented
In his column yesterday, E.J. Dionne draws attention to a Pew Research Center poll that (like a lot of polls lately) should worry the GOP.
The Pew Research Center poll gave respondents the list of issues that appeared on the 2004 exit poll and asked them which one issue would matter most if they had to vote for president now. In the 2004 exit poll, 27 percent said moral values, but that number has dropped to 10 percent. Now, people are more concerned over the economy and jobs, with that number going from 21 percent in 2004 to 50 percent today.
Dionne notes, “Conservative moral values voters have become the heart of the Republican coalition, and if their ranks are shrinking, so is the GOP’s base.” This concern is reflected in yesterday’s Gallup poll, which found that the Republican base is heavily white, conservative and religious.
But just as Dionne chides analysts from 2004 for claiming that “moral values” voters will make the Democratic Party irrelevant, it also seems premature to say that a concern for moral values won’t increase again, once the economy improves. (Dionne says that Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del. is “likely to get his wish” to see “the last battle of the culture wars.”) Firm predictions — as this very poll proves — are foolish to make.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top30 Comments to “Voters less values-oriented”
Most American voters do and think generally what the media tell them to do and think.
Why do you think that money makes a candidate and most money goes into media advertising? Beyond that, the free advertiaing given to Democrat candidates by their worshipful media also makes a huge impact.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a liberal Democrat and I consider myself a values voter. Protecting the environment for future generations, addressing climate change, ending war and the death penalty, addressing poverty. These are also moral issues.
Report comment to moderator
Ditto.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer, ending war is easy. All we would have to do is just stop opposing jihadist terrorism. What takes deeper moral values at a higher ethical level is to stand up to evil and be willing to do so sacrificially and courageously.
The best way to address economic or physical poverty is to support the free market system that provides more jobs and has done more to raise prosperity than any system in human history, and to continue to be the most generous nation in the world (from both private and public sectors).
But we must also address moral poverty and pollution (40% US births to unwed mothers, rising crime, rising divorce rates, X-rated entertainment proliferating, decrease in truth-telling, dramatic increase in voter fraud and intimidation, lawless illegal immigration, increasing vulgarity, exploitation of children, deconstructing marriage, proliferating abortion (including late-term abortion) and so much more).
Aesthetic poverty is also on the rise in America.
Report comment to moderator
Addressing climate change calls for more honesty and intellectual humility than we have received from the left and the media.
Report comment to moderator
And a great deal more honesty and integrity than we have received from the right, which continues to deny there is even a problem.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer,
Ending the death penalty is unwise and unjust. Families of victims of horrific murders should not have the option of genuine justice ripped from them by heartless moralists who have not considered the full impact of their moralistic demands. But a moral approach would still have rigorous standards for the application of that level of justice.
The Bible says;
“Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.” (Genesis 9:6)
When you respect the Imago Dei in humanity, you also respect the high value for innocent human life that is held by those who want murder (the unlawful and unjustified taking of human life) punished justly.
Report comment to moderator
#6, we disagree on the nature of the problem. I recall the huge concern over “global cooling” in the 70s and it amounted to nothing. Climate control is overly politicized by those on the left and that is am honesty and integrity problem. Follow the money too.
Report comment to moderator
The economic crisis renders much of the “culture war” irrelevant. In lean times, businesses will be less inclined to offer benefits to married heteros’ spouses, even less so to gay cohabitaters. I suspect that unless you’re employed by govt at some level in the USA (and so many of us are) the obsession with gay marriage as a “right” to obtain health insurance will no longer be on the table.
I agree with Joel Mark: captial punishmt is evil yet some of the things executed murderers did are far more evil
Report comment to moderator
I’m frankly a little tired of all the stories about “this should be bad for Republicans.” In the long run, I believe, this present Administration will be “good” for Republicans, in the ballot box at least. Bad for the country and individual Republicans and Democrats, I’m afraid. But it’s way, way too early to be saying what’s good or bad for Republicans. I for one am just watching to see how quickly people wake up.
But ultimately God is in control, and if Christian conservatives end up being persecuted minorities instead of a powerful lobby, that may do our country’s people more good anyway. (Not that I’d ever wish for such a thing, but that it doesn’t seem an impossibility, and God could choose to let us go that route. As the elder who preached at our church Sunday told us, our days of being a Christian Disneyland are probably over.)
Report comment to moderator
Another moral issue:
Oppressive taxation. Working people should be able to reap the fruit of their own labor to a greater extent. Some estimate that we work purely for the gov’t until some time in May or June every year before we are actually earning money for ourselves and our families. Economic slavery is immoral and oppressive taxation takes us closer to actual slavery.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark: Treating taxation as a “moral issue” is a losing issue for you.
Is it immoral NOT to tax this country enough to defend ourselves against jihadists?
Is it immoral NOT to tax this country enough to provide life-saving medicine for dying babies? For dying adults?
Is it moral to tax those who CAN afford more taxes and still maintain a lavish lifestyle (and who benefit much more greatly from the system taxes support) in order to provide a better life for those “working people” whom you seek to defend in your post?
CherylD: But ultimately God is in control, and if Christian conservatives end up being persecuted minorities instead of a powerful lobby…
Near as I can tell your god is in control. You have never had any trouble being both of those things simultaneously.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia wrote; “Treating taxation as a ‘moral issue’ is a losing issue for you.”
Whatever ‘wins’ or ‘loses’ is more a strategic question than a moral one. I am more interested on this thread in moral issues related to our voting practices. Taxation is indeed a moral issue (regardless of whether it wins or not). That’s inarguable among honest thinnkers. Slavery is when the worker does not receive a fair share of the fruit of their labor, but a governing “master” gets the lion’s share. Thus, excessive taxation takes us closer to slavery and I think that is immoral.
There is room for some respectable differences our views on the rate of taxation one may support, but it is still a moral question.
Aren’t we a govermnet of the people, by the people and for the people? That means the people should have the final say on taxation rates. When did so many voters come to think we are a people of the government, by the government and for the government?
Report comment to moderator
Capital punishment or judicial homicide is the worst cruelty that humans inflict on other humans. I’d rather be murdered.
Some prosecutors think life in prison without parole is more cruel. That’s probably true, but the cruelty is spread over a very long time, and doesn’t inflict metaphysical negation.
Prisoners have often reported that a mock execution was the worst torture they suffered.
Report comment to moderator
#7 Joel Mark
“DC Lawyer, ending war is easy. All we would have to do is just stop opposing jihadist terrorism.”
Joel, They kill each other as much or more than they do us Christians, and Hindus, and animists, and …
Muslims are anything but peaceful.
Report comment to moderator
Count me with Nos. 2 and 3. The Right has long tried to pretend that “moral values” are equal to and limited to the ones that they’re most concerned with. The nice (for them) result of this is that they get to prattle on about how any one who votes based on other issues is not concerned about “moral values.”
But yes, health care, aid for the poor, environmental protection and other “liberal” causes are every bit as much based in moral values.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK (4): DC Lawyer, ending war is easy. All we would have to do is just stop opposing jihadist terrorism.
Frank: That’s right, JM. Every war America has embarked upon in the last 150 years has been to fight “jihadist terrorism.” [eyeroll]
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH (14): Capital punishment or judicial homicide is the worst cruelty that humans inflict on other humans. I’d rather be murdered.
Frank: Your sense of bad/worse/worst amazes me.
How is it more cruel to try an accused murderer and, if he is found guilty, execute him for his crimes? (Consider the crimes committed by Karla Faye Tucker as compared to her just execution by the state of Texas — Governor Bush’s childish mocking of his own sister in Christ notwithstanding. How was her execution more cruel than the crimes she committed?)
Report comment to moderator
BTW, a nation’s economic policy is also a vital moral issue. “We must federally define marriage and outlaw flag burning! (But I have no fundamental issue with the Federal Reserve.)”
Our fiat-currency-backed economy is based on theft and unjust taxation (but I repeat myself). That neither Dems nor Repubs seem inclined to lift a finger against it is indicative of their myopic “moral” concerns.
Report comment to moderator
How was her execution more cruel than the crimes she committed?
Start guessing, and I’ll type wormer and colder.
Report comment to moderator
Notice that when “moral values” are claimed to be a higher priority for voters, a Republican gets elected. And when “moral values” drop as a priority issue for voters, a Democrat takes office.
Report comment to moderator
#15, Bob Buckles, my statement about it being easy to end war was meant with a measure of hyperbole. Actually, if we had stopped opposing jihadist terrorism, there would have been a lot more war and more innocent people of all stripes slaughtered. I realize that.
Report comment to moderator
There is an ebb and flow to these things…every ten years we wring our hands, clean out our houses and wait for the end, but then truth comes storming back!
check out my website
http://www.redletterbelievers.com
“Living out your faith in all areas of your life!”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark says: “Notice that when “moral values” are claimed to be a higher priority for voters, a Republican gets elected. And when “moral values” drop as a priority issue for voters, a Democrat takes office.”
That’s because moral values is a code word for abortion and gay marriage. In away you all have caused the decline of moral values as a polling issue, because the more acceptance there is of gay marriage the less the code words matter. And the religious right’s near total abdication on the other issues I mentioned in 2 only highlights the hypocrisy. I think “moral values” has always polled better than it would if the issues were broken out because plenty of moderates and liberals say, of course, I’m for moral values. If you polled specifically on abortion and gay marriage, these issues would not even make the list of hot topics except for a small minority of voters.
Finally, JoelMark, I must say again, though it has been said before, the death penalty is immoral. Jesus repudiated it in words and actions, and that is why the Catholic Church and every other mainstream Christian denomination is officially opposed to it. As John Cardinal O’Connor made clear, you cannot teach respect for life by taking life.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
You made the assertion.
Now how about yousupport it?
Report comment to moderator
Jesus didn’t repudiate the death penalty, unless he repudiated the Mosaic law, which he didn’t, so he didn’t.
Report comment to moderator
#24, DC Lawyer wrote: “That’s because moral values is a code word for abortion and gay marriage.”
Who says? Actually, “moral values” refers to an entire worldview wherein it is affirmed that there is indeed such a thing as good and evil and humans should chooce the good for reasons that go beyond pure practicality or utilitarianism. It is ONLY in the mind of many liberals and Democrats that the phrase “moral values” is reserved or limited in any way to two particular issues. That phrase is all-encompassing to most conservatives.
Also, Jesus never repudicated the death penalty. Where did you get that, DC Lawyer? Actually, he ultimately affirmed it in his own willingness to submit to His Father and die for you and me.
Geneses 9:6 actually DOES equate respect for life (made in God’s image) with an affirmation of the death penalty (i.e. justice for those who murderer).
Report comment to moderator
Since when has the GOP cared about values lately either….nobody in Washington has any…
Report comment to moderator
“Capital punishment or judicial homicide is the worst cruelty that humans inflict on other humans. I’d rather be murdered.”
Is this why you support abortion?
Report comment to moderator
I think it is quite unfortunate that we tend to think of judicial execution of a murderer as punishment or vengeance. What if we were to look at capital punishment as something the murderer — usually a murderer — earned? For a criminal to take the life of a person is to usurp the authority of God, the giver of life, for which God delegates to the state the authority to act as His representative, “rewarding” the criminal for his deed(s). If I were an executioner legally elected/appointed/whatever I believe I could “throw the switch,” but I would do so with fear and trembling, having first talked very seriously with the Lord about this awesome responsibility. And admittedly, maybe I can talk like this because I know I will never be called upon to perform the deed.
Is payment in kind for a debt to society that strange?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!