Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - [internetworkers] Article: "Why did Kerry lose?"

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers:http"@metalab.unc.edu://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/ <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: [internetworkers] Article: "Why did Kerry lose?"
  • Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:19:52 -0500

James Q. Wilson knows more than any of us about American politics, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I saw his article at the WSJ <http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109987690402167230,00.html>, but it may be (read: probably is) available elsewhere. I haven't searched, but here are some excerpts for non-subscribers:

"... The nation did not undergo a rightward shift in 2004 any more than it had when it elected Reagan in 1980 and re-elected him in 1984. The policy preferences of Americans are remarkably stable, a fact that has been confirmed by virtually every scholar who has looked at the matter.

There is no doubt that John Kerry showed great skill at embracing deeply contradictory positions, but that does not make him unusual; all politicians have mastered the art of self-contradiction. What was remarkable in this election is that one candidate, President Bush, never changed: He said what he meant and meant what he said." ...

In truth, American politics has frequently been gripped by moral issues. It is one of the aspects of our history and culture that makes us different from most European democracies. We have become morally engaged by the struggle against slavery and against liquor and for civil rights. David L. Chappell, in his splendid history of the civil rights movement, reminds us that this was not simply or even mostly a political struggle about well-understood rights but rather a religious effort to define those rights and to motivate people to recognize them. It is easy to forget that there were religious leaders on both sides of that struggle. Those who defended segregation urged followers to confine preaching to the word of God and not to meddle with cultural matters; those who attacked segregation said that the word of God required them to prevail by changing the culture.

It is true that President Bush improved his voting support among people who attend church frequently and who describe themselves as Catholics, Protestants and Jews, but Sen. Kerry won nearly half of all Catholic votes and over three-fourths of all Jewish ones.

The ritualistic condemnation of Christian fundamentalists neglects two things. The first: Secularists are just as likely to provoke moral outrage as are religious believers, yet we rarely read stories about the Secular Left. The second: Research shows that organizations of Christian fundamentalists are hardly made up of fire-breathers but rather are organizations whose members practice consensual politics and rely on appeals to widely shared constitutional principles.

One can make a good case that the economy or the war in Iraq were just as important as morality. ..."

You can trust him or not, as the case may be. One the one hand, he's a Democrat (or used to be - I haven't kept up with his voting preferences).

On the other, he's a neocon. As in, literally, a founding member of the neoconservative movement - along with Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, et al. - and not the "neoconservatives" commonly accused of hijacking the Bush administration, or what-have-you.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher




  • [internetworkers] Article: "Why did Kerry lose?", James Dasher, 11/09/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page