Or at least, it's not a sufficient explanation of what happened.
There are many statistics that make it seem inarguable that Democrats lost to "God, guns and gays:"
- 22% of voters listed "moral values" as their primary concern, topping terrorism or the economy. According to CNN, 80% of these respondents voted for Bush.
- 77% of "white evangelicals" voted for Bush, according to the WaPo.
- Again according to CNN, the 8% who thought "religious faith" was the most important quality in a president voted 91% for Bush. Meanwhile 61% of those who attend church each week voted for Bush. Interestingly, though, 70% of weekly-attendance Protestants went Republican, while only 56% of weekly Catholics did the same.
My thanks to ihlin and briefman for a couple of these links.
But there's good evidence to suggest that moral values alone did not defeat Kerry.
Look at the CNN poll again:
- 70% of those who thought being honest/trustworthy broke Republican;
- 87% who thought being a strong leader
- 79% who thought having a clear stand on issues.
And guess what? Those three items were the central focus of Rove's ad campaigns. Put those together with "religious faith" and you get 53% of voters.
By the way, Kerry did not-so-bad on his main points. He took:
- 75% of those who picked "cares about people"
- 91% of those who chose "intelligence"
- 95% of those who picked "will bring change."
And Kerry absolutely crushes Bush among those who believe the US is less safe now, or that the war in Iraq is not going well.
So both candidates' message worked, but W.'s message worked a little better.
And consider this data from the "Pew Religion Forum (see full study) and the Ray K Bliss Institute at University of Akron," via Beliefnet: of the voting population,
- 12.6% belong to the Religious Right
- 11.4% are what Beliefnet terms "Heartland Culture Warriors"
- 10.8% are "Moderate Evangelicals" a.k.a "freestyle evangelicals"
- 7.0% are "White Bread Protestants"
- 8.1% are "Covertible [or "Swing"] Catholics"
- 12.6% are the "Religious Left"
- 5.3% are "Spiritual but not Religious"
- 10.7% are "Secular"
- 7.3% are Latino
- 1.9% are Jews
- 2.7% are Muslims or other faiths, and
- 9.6% are Black Protestants
Quibble with the numbers or the categories if you like, but here's the important point:
only about 24% of these folks are hard-core conservative Christians. Most of the rest are swing voters or progressives. Furthermore,
there's nothing in principle to suggest that a coalition can't be built between the remaining groups.
Data isn't available for some of these groups (at least, I haven't seen it). But we do know that Bush did better than expected among some groups. From another BeliefNet article [thanks again ihlin]:
Third, Bush's support among African Americans was much higher in several key states Tuesday than in 2000. Exit polls indicate that Bush received 16% of votes by Ohio blacks (up from 9% four years ago) and 13% of votes by Florida blacks (up from 7% four years ago). Polls consistently show African Americans to be more religiously inclined than the rest of the population, and CBS' Ed Bradley speculated Tuesday night that Bush's opposition to abortion and gay marriage resonated among blacks. Indeed, 61% of African Americans in Ohio supported an initiative banning same-sex marriages.
Lastly, exit polls also indicate that Bush's support rose from 2000 among Catholics (up 5% to 52%) and Jewish Americans (up 6% to 25%). Put simply, people of religious faith gravitated toward Bush, or at least away from his Democratic Party opponent, in greater numbers than in 2000.
Note that the black votes are by race, not religion.
So what's it all mean? Well, that Bush's base truly is white evangelicals, and that base turned out more strongly than Kerry's base--those who wanted change, and those who opposed the war. That's the real story behind the values question.
Moreover, Bush was able to poach a few minority votes, primarily by appealing to black and Hispanic family values, but probably also by convincing a few Jews that his support for Israel was more firm than Kerry's.
This suggests to me that the appropriate response on the "morals front" is not to make the Democratic party more religious, nor to make its candidates use phony religious language to hoodwink voters into thinking that the candidate agrees with their values.
More important, neither is the answer to "reframe the issues," at least not by itself. Instead, I think what needs to happen is building upon the connections and affinities that already exist among the 76% of voters not affiliated with conservative religious beliefs.
Primarily, as many around this board have suggested, that's going to mean making the moral values issues revolve around social justice, not sexual ethics. Steering the conversation in this direction will build up or preserve solid constituencies among blacks, Hispanics, and moderate evangelicals.
Second but no less important, it's going to mean preserving not the progressive voice in American values, but the moderate one.
Why? Well, two interconnected reasons: most voters, I think, don't really "get" progressive religion. There's a reason liberal Christians are only 12% of the voters. And they certainly don't get the importance of protecting the rights of the secular minority. For better or worse, most voters see secular humanism as something foreign and antithetical to the American project, even as secularism grows in the United States. As galiel has pointed out to me more than once, the idea that secularism=immorality is still firmly lodged in voter's minds. (And here's an opportunity for me to publicly state that I disagree with that idea.)
But what does make sense to the vast middle of American voters is the idea of tolerance for all--without that "all" being defined too closely. As galiel has also pointed out, there is a real and growing danger from a theocratic minority. Helping voters to understand this threat may bring out the "tolerant traditionalists," those who might disagree with your values, but fight to the death to preserve your right to believe in them.
To no one's surprise, this is a major project. It will take years and years, and it may not happen in time to win the next presidential election. But it can be done, it should be done, and it needs to start now. It's the only way we're going to grow a stable enough base to take back our government in the next thirty years.
I'm interested in hearing how you think it can be accomplished.
Update [2004-11-5 12:52:32 by pastordan]: #1: As some posters have noted below, one of the major questions going around in these conversations is whether the Democratic party should reach out to the "moral values" crowd, or claim more firmly the moral imperatives that it already has. Let's be clear: I'm coming on on the latter side, not the former.
Update [2004-11-5 12:52:32 by pastordan]: #2: Some folks have also objected that my numbers here are pretty shaky. As I say in the comments below, I'm fairly sure that the general thrust will be born out when we have more authoritative data. But objections duly noted.
End transmission.