[lavender] FW: Re: [GreensQuestion] Dems in denial blame gays for Bush victory (Doug Ireland, LA Weekly)]

[Owen Broadhurst]

----Original Message Follows----
From: "bob" <bobo926 at verizon.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:30:27 -0500

While I would agree with the author's basic point regarding Democrats using
gay rights as a scapegoat to 'explain' their defeat, I believe there are
major errors in his thinking. If 911 had brought about a tectonic shift to
the right as he claims, the 2004 results would NOT have been a near
duplicate of the 2000 results which occurred before 911.

When actual major shifts have occurred in politics, it has been reflected in
the vote totals for president and Congress. That has not occurred.

Bush and company mobilized their base and that won them the election.
Democrats were not able to mobilize their base because they took such bad
stands on the issues. And it cost them. Republican turnout increased
dramatically. Democratic turnout showed no comparable increase.

Only 2 states flipped to the Republicans: New Mexico and Iowa. Neither
effected the outcome of the election. Bush won both Florida and Ohio in
2000. So there's not much change there.

While 911 provided a major potential benefit to Bush, the results show that
it didn't translate into very many votes. Instead, the results from 2004 are
almost a duplicate of those for 2000 and are perfectly congruent with those
of the Congressional elections of 2002. The major change in the House of
Representatives was due to the gerrymandering in Texas.

I think he also mis-interprets the category of 'new voters'. It appears that
what actually happened was that Bush was able to mobilize a few million
evangelicals who hadn't previously voted. Even if these folks were 65 years
old, they were counted as new voters. So what that means is simply that the
Republicans were much better at mobilizing their base. That's what they said
they were going to do. It's what they did.

The interpretation of 'moral values' presented here is also distorted.
Various polls disagree about the numbers. However, in no case was the
percent more than 27%. That means that at a minimum, 73% of the voters did
so based on other issues: Iraq, the economy, etc.

Many of those voters chose 'moral values' as an equivalent of 'other' or
'none of the above'. Many chose 'moral values' but meant 'progressive moral
values'. It is inaccurate to assume (as the pundits have) that choosing the
term 'moral values' automatically and always translates into 'right wing
fanatic'. Of those who are, in fact, 'right wing fanatics', what we're
talking about is the hard core right, who are a distinct minority of the
electorate and can safely be ignored when planning progressive strategies
for other elections.

Interpretations are difficult on other responses also. The author says "A
lopsided majority of white women (65
 > percent) among new voters say gay marriage
 > affected how they voted — worse, so did 61
 > percent of college students."
He then assumes that means that 61% of the college students opposed gay
marriage when other polls have shown the exact opposite. That is, many
college students may have gone to the polls because they favored gay
marriage.

He's right in saying that progressives did not drive the debate in the
Democratic Party. But any analysis about what's happening must include the
fact that the Democrats haven't suffered any overwhelming losses due to 911.
Issues like gay marriage also must be put into a context if one is to try to
draw conclusions about which direction the country is moving. At this point,
there's a substantial percentage of the population that favors gay marriage
rights as well as another rather substantial percentage that favors civil
unions. Was that true in 1970? Or in 1980? Has the support for gay marriages
and civil unions increased or decreased during the last 30 years? My
experience tells me that support for both has increased rather dramatically.
In recent years a Republican Supreme Court overturned the last 'sodomy'
laws. 30 years ago, those laws were accepted as legitimate by most
Americans. Today, I can have a rational discussion with just about anyone
about gay marriage without my sanity being called into question. That wasn't
true 30 years ago. I wish that there were already a majority in favor of gay
marriage rights. I also wish that there weren't any financial benefits to
any sort of marriage and no penalties for being single as I am.

The Democratic Party didn't act differently during this election as the
author claims. Instead, they acted the way that they have for the last 25
years -- they moved to the right. Reagan didn't cause the shift. They began
doing it in 1978 as Carter supported bigger bombs, a tougher stance against
the rest of the world, and economic policies detrimental to ordinary working
people. The reaction wasn't to Reagan. The reaction was to the victories
that progressive social forces had won in the wake of the Watergate scandal,
campus and urban rebellions  and the defeat in Vietnam.

The writer focuses on only one of the many post-election polls (although he
mentions a second poll tangentially). There's nothing to say that it is the
most accurate of them. A fair article would have compared and contrasted the
responses on a variety of such polls.

For example, among the people who voted for Kerry only 7% chose 'moral
values' as the main reason. That means that 93% did not.

There's an even more interesting fact from the PEW poll. When asked an
open-ended question about the most important issue in deciding who to vote
for, only 9% of all voters chose 'moral values' while 27% chose Iraq and 14%
chose the economy. When given a list to choose from 27% chose 'moral
values'.  That means that the polling method CREATED the responses. When
PUSHED to choose from a list, 3 times as many people chose 'moral values'.
When asked simply what they were thinking, they tended to say Iraq and the
economy.
http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Pollster

Given the way that Democrats have responded since the election, one wonders
both about the facts that they SELECT to talk about as well as HOW the
polling organizations can produce the responses that fit into the
re-definition of politics that the ruling class wants.
According to the LA Times exit poll 19% of liberals and 12% of Democrats
voted for Bush. Both independents and moderates chose Kerry. 14% of Blacks
voted for Bush. Contrary to the implications in this article both single men
and single women (who tend to be younger on average) voted overwhelmingly
for Kerry as did voters 18-29 years of age.

In addition, the exit polls do not give us any indication of the views of
those who didn't vote because they saw no difference between the candidates
but whom might vote if they perceived a significant difference. My guess is
that they would tend to be more progressive especially because Kerry DID NOT
RUN AS A PROGRESSIVE.

The author is correct in his analysis of the gay marriage referendums as
well as the behavior of the Democrats, but I believe that a different view
of the electorate is more helpful in rebutting their arguments. I also think
that it's more accurate.

One lesson I learned a long time ago is that it was very difficult to win
when you allow the other side to define the battlefield. To justify their
continued movement (not turn) to the right, the Democrats try to portray a
system of 'facts' that justify their conservative views. They try to claim
that they are merely reflecting the values of ordinary Americans. It isn't
true. It's never been true. The reality is that they try to mold the views
of Americans (through manipulation of issues and supposed facts) to coincide
with the political positions that they are taking in the interests of the
corporate rulers. When we fall for the views of their 'talking heads' or
accept their portrayal of facts as being legitimate, we hurt ourselves and
our ability to move the agenda to the left.

bob



----- Original Message -----
From: "George DeCarlo" <alexdn at ix.netcom.com>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 8:26 AM


 > Gays on the Ropes
 >
 > Democrats in denial blame gays for Bush’s victory
 > by Doug Ireland
 >
 > LA Weekly, December 3-9, 2004
 > http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/02/news-ireland.php