A Politics Post: Values Voters?

For the better part of two years, Democrats have been agonizing over their loss of "values voters" in the 2004 elections.  Typically, this concern for "values voters" boils down to two questions:

1.  Is the national Democratic party too stringent and vocal in its defense of human/gay rights?

2.  Is the national Democratic party too stringent and vocal in its defense of reproductive rights?

I understand that Democratic strategists instinctively believe that the presence of anti-gay/human rights initiatives drove up Republican turn-out in 2004, but I question the premise.  For all of American history, structural factors -- phone banks, local power brokers, individual networks -- have made the difference when it comes to voter turnout (which is miserably low in off-year elections in any case.)  Did anti-gay initiatives get Republicans to the polls, or did Republicans get to the polls in great enough numbers to defeat the initiatives?  (Not to mention: those initiatives failed because otherwise committed Democrats voted against them, too.)

Granted "committed voters" make the difference in closely fought elections.  Maybe moral values explains the political commitment of the Republican base.  But even if that's true -- and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that many solid Republicans are rich people protecting their economic interests -- does the Democratic party really believe that it's worth abandoning a commitment to human rights and reproductive freedom to win over the small and solid majority of Republican voters who care more about preventing gay marriage and outlawing abortion than anything else?

Anti-abortion, anti-gay rights evangelical Christians are never going to vote for Democrats in national elections.  They might vote for Democratic representatives to Congress, or Democratic Governors.  There's plenty of evidence that they already do: "red-state" Red Clay State -- which hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 -- has a Democratic governor and solid Democratic majorities in both the State Legislature and the State Senate.  But for President?  The symbolic power of that vote is too great for committed party adherents -- in both parties -- to cross.  So why do Democratic strategists conflate presidential election poll data with arguments about how to "win back" Congress?

Often the "values voters" argument falls back on an economic discussion.  Some Democratic Strategists seem to have concluded that "moral values" explain the failure of middle-income Republicans to vote their own economic interests.  (See What's the Matter with Kansas?)  Democrats often ask each other, why do Republican voters care so much about gays and abortions (and evolution) that they're willing to vote for the party that gives enormous tax breaks to corporations and the very wealthy, while saddling middle- and lower-income voters with regressive social-security taxes, an exploding federal debt, a health-care system in crisis, and federal policies that privilege corporations over small business owners?

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, real median household incomes in 2005 ranged from $42,138 in the South to $50,882 in the Northeast.  If I understand the tabulations correctly (please correct me if I do not), 83 percent of households generated less than $99,999 annually and 71 percent generated less than $74,999.

That means that if your household income ranks in the six figures -- regardless of where you live -- you rank among the richest people in the United States, and in the world.  When your household income ranks in the top 17 percent for the richest country on earth, you have lost the right to refer to yourself as middle class.  You are nowhere near the middle.

That having been said, I remain skeptical that people vote against their economic interests as they define them, or that they vote that way because "moral values" trump other issues.  Yes, my father has been unemployed for three years, and he continues to believe that he will be a high-income earner who will benefit from Republican tax breaks in the future.  But does this make him any more blind to his own economic circumstances than the couple earning $125,000 annually who thinks they're part of the great, economically endangered middle class?

My father welcomes his Republican-passed $100 tax break each year and doesn't especially care that the super-wealthy get tax breaks ten times that amount.  He sees the Federal government as a massively inefficient machine that should be shrunk, and why shouldn't those who pay more taxes, get greater tax relief?  He does happen to be a weekly attender of a Lutheran church, but couldn't care less about gay rights or abortion if you paid him.  His church happens has had lesbian ministers and council presidents in the past.

In other words, my father votes Republican because of a rhetorical argument about American standards of fairness and equal opportunity, and distrust of government generally, not because of values or his own economic stupidity.  Although -- remember how effective Ross Perot was, with those charts and numbers?  I don't think American voters are as indifferent to their economic interests, or unwilling to consider other arguments, as Democrats like to believe they might be.  As for rhetoric, does anyone doubt that John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 lacked the rhetorical flair to change my father's vote?

---

A friend -- who doesn't publicize the blog on which he's done the analysis -- has noted repeatedly that on average, the poorest voters in America still vote for Democrats.  There are far more wealthy Democrats voting against their economic interests than poor Republicans voting against theirs.

Now the New York Times has published data backing up that assertion.  The NYT electoral map for the House of Representatives shows that, of the 22 districts with median household incomes lower than $30,000, only four are currently represented by Republicans.  None of those districts looks likely to change hands tomorrow.  There are 107 districts with median household incomes greater than $50,000.  60 percent of them are currently represented by Republicans.  Of the 64 high-income Republican districts, six are leaning Republican, one leans Democrat, and seven are toss-ups.  None of the 43 high-income Democratic districts looks to be changing parties, although Melissa Bean in Illinois 8 has only a narrow lead.

There are 306 districts in which the median annual household income falls between $30,000 and $50,000.  Of these, 53 percent -- 163 -- are currently held by Republicans.  Nine of these current middle-income Republican districts supposedly lean Democratic tomorrow, while one (the Arizona Eighth) is polling solidly Democratic.  The Times estimates that seven of the current Republican districts are toss-ups. Of the 143 current Democratic Representatives for districts with median household incomes between $30 and $50K, only four are apparently even in tight races, and all four poll as likely to remain in Democratic hands.

Arguably, the relatively even division of middle-income districts between Democratic and Republican representatives supports the "values voters" argument.  Why would so many people vote in favor of the party whose economic platform doesn't serve their interests?  It must be values, we hastily conclude.  But on what evidence?  The 2004 presidential exit poll that supposedly showed the importance of "moral values" was poorly worded, and still showed that only 22 percent of voters ranked moral values as the primary reason why they voted as they did.  Yes, 61 percent of those who attended church at least once a week voted for Bush, but they made up only 41 percent of the total electorate.  And many of them, at the local level, voted for Democrats.

I'm never going to sell out my gay friends and allies, or join the cry to demonize women who choose abortion, or argue that the Bible should trump science in our schools.  I'm certainly not going to do it for "political expediency" when they're no evidence to speak of that it would make a difference in Congressional Elections in any case.

I will, however, be talking to all my friends, to make sure they vote tomorrow.  Whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you're in the USA, I sure hope you'll do the same.

Comments

[Suz]

I had to read this a few times to make sure that I got it. I think of myself solidly in the middle of the middle class, although I'm not according to your numbers and vote Democratic. My economic interests play into it to the extent that I believe that the Democrats will spend my money better than the Republicans, even though I might give more of it under them. And, you know what, I'm happy to give more if it's spent wisely. What really makes me angry are those folks, like my dad, a life-long Republican who went to fantastic public schools, received federal scholarships to college, and still believe that the government did "nothing" for him and that he's entitled to keep all that he earns.

[liz]

Sing it!

[Phantom Scribbler]

Thanks to you and your friend for pointing out the association between income and party affiliation.

[courtney]

I'm in the second month of a two-year stint in Israel (my husband has a postdoc here) so we voted weeks ago by absentee. I'm fortunate that I got to vote for an actual liberal in my congressional race (KY-03) instead of a Democrat pandering to the so-called moral voters. This was a great post and I learned a lot, although you were preaching to the choir in my case.

[Jon Kay]

> I'm never going to sell out my gay friends and allies, or join the
> cry to demonize women who choose abortion, or argue that the Bible
> should trump science in our schools. I'm certainly not going to do
> it for "political expediency" when they're no evidence to speak of
> that it would make a difference in Congressional Elections in any
> case.

And what Democrats asked you to? If you choose to answer this, please be specific, by claim.

Looks like you've been reading too much Frank; your theory of economics is a tad demagogic.

Despite the demagogic bits both parties love, both parties are equally in favor of socialist capitalism with a safety net. Dems like a bigger safety net, but that could just be reflective of Democratic patronage patterns, which are to have lots of little guys happy from getting govt services, while GOP patronage patterns are more oriented toward lots of defense-related jobs.

Capitalism is good because, with the appropriate safeguards the US already has in place, it's the best system we know of for improving everybody's lot - poor and rich. In fact, virtually everybody does get better jobs over time. It definitely has its drawbacks (concentration of wealth), but, look, today's information, entertainment, and engineering jobs certainly beat our parents' factory jobs, and the factory jobs were infinitely better than the low-paying, harder working farm jobs that preceded them.

[karla]

so, here is my voting history thus far. before the last election, i have always voted republican. i was raised that way. i didn't think about it. i voted republican, because i was raised in a christian home, and being christian means you voted republican (you know, the people who vote anti-gay and anti-abortion). this year, i actually decided it was time to start thinking about what i was voting for.....and then i realized how tricky the republican party is....they USE that christian assumption (that we should be republicans) to sway the vote. i got so many mailings that said stuff like, "If you have values, you will vote for [republican candidate]." or "Do you want to vote with people who offend our value systems? Do you want to stand with Madonna who stood on a crucifix in her last show? Madonna supports this [democratic candidate/ party]." Or these people stand by [this democratic candidate]: Madonna, Britney Spears, [other secular celebrities] and James Dobson, [other well-known Christians] stand by this [republican candidate]. Whose side do you want to be on?
And ya know, i started thinking i didn't want to be voting for a party that was trying to treat me like i was twelve and needing to be reminded to be a "good little girl" and vote like all good christians vote.

[novfishkao]

Holla,
The characteristic they share in common is a low payment rate, usually between 1% and 1.95%.
Credit Counseling companies work closely with lenders that you have and negotiate acceptable payment arrangements for both the lender and the borrower.
The first thing you need to do is carefully check that your credit report is accurate.




money online



Thank you

[Trulyaler]

jamison mattress
twin mattress

[BunterMedic]

Hello
Where find bad girls?
G'night