Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Guide Weather Subscribe Contact Us November 18, 2004 Silver-spoon Bush still wins vote of working class By Brian Stout Boston, Mass. Across America, many people are confronting the encroaching tides of despair with disbelief: how did it happen? After all, George W. Bush won Florida by a convincing margin, and this time actually corralled the popular vote - even with record turnouts. But even this surprise pales when compared to the central conundrum of the left in modern politics: how could it be that working-class Americans continue to support an administration so opposed to their economic interests? It is no secret that the Bush administration panders to the wealthy. In his own words he describes his constituency as the "haves, and the have-mores." With Bush in the White House, the wealthy benefit. So does another major pillar of his base: Evangelical Christians. But the average American, the blue-collar worker from the Midwest whose vote ultimately gave Bush the election, will not. It is a paradox of "living poor, and voting rich" as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof so aptly observed. Why then do the working poor give him their vote? For the second consecutive election, the decisive votes turned on issues of "moral values." Bush's message resonates with the majority of Americans because they recognize in his conviction a man governed by faith and heart, not politics and intellect. When it came time to cast the ballot, a majority of Americans rallied around a man with vision, faith, and conviction. Relying on feeling rather than reasoned debate, many Americans agreed with Bush on pivotal issues like gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research. The commitment to these broad "social values" drove the decisive wedge between middle America and the two coasts, leaving the outliers shaking their heads in disbelief and disgust. The prevailing attitude of many "Northeast liberals" toward the conservative working class is a combination of derision and contempt - sentiments these "ordinary Americans" interpret as a sense of superiority that instantly goads a negative reactive response. You and your New York Times readers can't tell us how to vote, the message seems to be. In contrast to the culturally elitist overtones of the Democrats, straight-talking George W. Bush seems a true man of the people. And herein lies the true testament to the success of the Right: that a man like George W. Bush, born into a family of oil tycoons and nursed with a silver spoon, a man who openly admits, "I've never lived around poor people - I don't get them," can take the presidency by appealing to those who would seem most damaged by his plutocratic policies. The Right has succeeded in this endeavor by defining the terms in which morality is discussed. Bush campaigns on a "right to life" platform, but is a leading advocate of the death penalty. Bush resolves to bring "justice" to Iraq and Afghanistan, but stubbornly refuses to reconsider his policy as civilian deaths mount into the tens of thousands. He presents America as the foundation of democracy, yet presides over one of the most close-minded and secretive administration's in history. He chastises other countries for human rights abuses, then reneges on the International Criminal Court treaty, ignores the mandates of the Geneva Convention, and dismisses the tragedy at Abu Ghraib as the "acts of a few individuals." Bush's "vision for America" is actually a radical reconception of what our founders intended. His Patriot Act tramples many of the civil liberties championed in the Bill of Rights, while his administration's attitude toward the press is one of repression and antagonism. The founders explicitly provided for a strict separation of church and state, rightly understanding that it is not the government's role to legislate morality. Many voters responded to Bush's appeal as "all-American," a man who represents "American values." To an outsider, it may be unclear what these values are. The support for a ban on gay marriage suggests that tolerance is not among them. The clamor against abortion indicates that a woman's right to bodily self-determination is not among them. The administration's actions in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib suggest that a commitment to basic human rights is not an American value. It is the task of Democrats in the next election to paint a portrait of morality that actually deals with the fundamental issues at the heart of what it means to be American. We have to challenge the Right's monopoly on morality by defining values according to our Constitution and our history, not the ideological agenda of the Evangelical Right. At stake in this battle is the very future of America: a progressive vision based on our proud democratic heritage, or a regressive trend toward conflating American values with the values of the conservative Right. We would do well to remember our roots. Brian Stout, a longtime resident of Ashland, graduated in 2004 from Amherst College and is now living in Boston. DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Slippers Isotoner Slippers Dsw Shoes Ceramic Piggy Banks Fanny Mae Eloans Calenders 2005 Calender 2005 Accelerate Weight Loss Programs Citibank Student Loans Acs Loan Matchmaking & Dating Scripts Adventure Travel Conference Calls - $50/Month Security Systems student loan consolidation helzberg diamonds Click Here Site Search: .:Advertisements:. RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams