November 05, 2004
Red and Blue America
2000
2004
Any questions? No? Carry on, then.
Posted by Clifton at November 5, 2004 05:50 AM | TrackBackHowdy Bro,
Guess what? The red is impressive. Lots of it. In the middle of the desert. This is an impressive map, but it does not account for population. The margin of victory for GWB was around 3 million. That is less than the number of registered voters in the 6 county area around Chicago.
All the red in Wyoming = 500,000 population (not sure how many of those were voters)
The Blue in Mass. = 6 million population. (ditto the above parantheseseses)
Posted by: justin at November 5, 2004 11:55 AM
Justin:
A hearty "Jesusland" (but not a "United States of Canada"!) howdy right back atcha.
http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/images/jesusland.jpg
Um . . . I wouldn't exactly call California to North Carolina, Washington state to Florida, Maine to New Mexico "desert"--though there are deserts there. But you're right that the tiny clusters of blue you see out there are where people congregate. Us "moral values voters" tend to spread out. Makes life more peaceful-like.
It's not about numbers exactly, as you note. But it is about culture: cities vs. exurbs/suburbs and the vast rural stretches of America. And this week moral values voters (evangelicals and Catholics, Orthodox and others) put the country on notice: there can be no compromise on moral values.
There is no such thing as a "middle way" between sex outside marriage is a sin and sex outside marriage is not a sin. There is no such thing as a middle way between marriage is between a man and a woman, and marriage is between anyone who wants to be married. There is no such thing as a middle way between unborn life must not be killed or manipulated for reserach and unborn life isn't really human.
We have a divided country. And the blues have pretty much been allowed to set the moral agenda for all of us: abortion on demand, gay marriage, shove religion into the private sphere where it can only harm its adherents, and so forth. But Tuesday the rest of the reds out there spoke up.
I'm not overly sanguine that the reds will do anything else about it. They've had their say, and I'm unfortunately less than hopeful that they'll do anything more than just speak out.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 12:14 PMWe need to find a way for things to work together...idealis I know...that is why I am a democrat.
Anyhoo, all this talk of man-dates and stuff is a wee bit disconcerting (i am changing subject a bit). 3 million votes is not a mandate. GWB won with move votes than anyother president elected, but Kerry got more votes for president than anyone in history except GWB. Kerry's numbers would have beat 1984 Reagan (50 million).
My point...there is no man-date. GWB needs to realize this. He need (both sides need) to find a way to work through our differences.
Posted by: justin at November 5, 2004 12:31 PMIf you measure mandate by sheer numbers, then GWB does not have a mandate. Or at least his mandate is a muted one. If he'd've pulled a Reagan and taken every state but one, then maybe . . .
But mandates are not borne only on the shoulders of percentages and numbers.
Think about it. GWB faced the most concerted effort to keep him from getting back into office than perhaps almost any other president in modern history. Not only were the Democrats gunning for him--a given, of course--but the media were out to get him as well. This is just documentable fact. We the viewing public were treated to an endless parade of anti-Bush books and booktours, with the media providing glowing reviews and helpful plugs on the morning TV news shows. Things got so bad that Bush opponents actually made up documents, and stories to go with them, to attempt to bring him down. It's now well-known that CBS originally intended to bring out the missing weapons story the Sunday before the election--which would probably have provided almost no time for the truth to come out, as it did, and still is.
Almost the entire entertainment industry--actors, musicians--were out to defeat Bush, to the point of outright falsehood. Michael Moore and company, the "rock the vote" Springsteen tour for change, the "get out the youth" vote, and on and on.
Even when things went right for Bush--job growth, economic growth, good news from Iraq and Afghanistan--it was an all out effort to focus on how bad things were because of Bush. If poll numbers in the U. S. were up in Bush's favor, then cut to European opinions and how the whole world hated Bush.
Even the exit polls on election day--if I can wax a bit conspiratorial in the afterglow--may well have been leaked precisely to discourage Bush supporters from turning out, which is likely what happened in panhandle Florida in 2000.
You stack all that up, and it's no wonder everyone but the Bush supporters--and some of them, too--were and are just stunned that Bush won.
No, brother, as Bush said: he's earned some cred, and he gets to cash it in.
Mandate? Yep. I think so.
And after all, the point of being elected is to govern. Govern, Mr. Bush, govern. You've got a mandate.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 01:17 PMCan we really make monolithic claims about this? Yes, according to exit poles "moral values" were on the minds of people who voted. But is it so nice a clean as you make it out to be, Cliff? Sojourners and the like, would stand with you on abortion and even claim to have voted based on "moral values". However their "moral values" that they believe should effect ones politics doesn't stop at abortion (not sure their position on homosexuality actually) but would include opposition to the Iraq war and care for the poor.
Plus, I have long rubbed shoulders those people who attend church every week and vote republican and in terms of their human conduct (not necesarily their stated world view) they are as often as not indestiguishable from those who don't attend church. Which may be the reason for your wondering if it will go any further. It seems to me that those who are so concerned for "protecting" marriage are as likely to get divorced as anyone else.
There just seems to me to be something very very wrong with this whole picture, hypocrisy seems rampant if you ask me, "red" or "blue".
Oh and btw I'm neither red nor blue, does that make me pink or violete? Or maybe orange? No no what am I think its black, or is it white? ;-} IT can get just a little ridiculous no?!
He has no mandate from me. I guess I don't matter somehow. Is this what you are saying?
I am not sure what "govern" means when you use it. I hear "serve all people." I am not sure he is interested in serving all of us. Not to say that Kerry was either, but W has no know stated goal. Even in his talk of unity, he says things like "We invite you all to join us." I don't think he means for tea.
And I think the population thing is a big deal. I see urban conservatives as unusual. I wonder what it is about the cities that sap the moral fortitude out of people. Or is it that those who cannot hack a moral suburbia flee it? I dunno.
What are the socipolitical dynamics tied to?
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 01:23 PMThe thing that stands out is that we have pretty much been in a holding pattern, which would seem to indicate that the issues of 2000 have failed to be resolved in any measurable way, if anything, the division over them has simply increased, hence a more "energized" electorate.
The only way I can see us really getting out of this is by getting the judiciary out of it, by returning these issues back to their proper legislative context and the two sides can hammer out an agreement.
Posted by: LLB at November 5, 2004 01:23 PMFirst of all, Clinton didn't have my mandate, either. In fact, Clinton had less of a mandate, if you want to go by numbers, than President Bush did in his first term. But Clinton won the election because more people wanted him to do what he promised. Clinton got elected to govern, so when he got into office, one of the first things he did was set up the Hilarycare machine. The public didn't like it, and it died a timely death. But that's what you do when you get elected, you receive a mandate to govern. In our government, there are ways of reigning in a politician when she or he runs off the rails. But he or she still has a mandate by sheer force of getting elected.
Secondly, this notion of serving all doesn't mean everybody gets their pet projects accomplished. Sometimes serving all means quite specifically rejecting their wishes. Some of Bush's constituents believe that the government should have more of our money so that it can serve more of us. But Bush is convinced that that is detrimental to the nation as a whole, so to serve everyone he rejects that wishes of a segment of the citizenry so as to serve them in what he believes are better ways, tax cuts and economic stimulus.
On some views there is no compromise, and to talk of unity on these matters is both useless and a waste of time. You cannot combine opposites without destroying one or both of them. Compromise is not only not always possible, but is sometimes actually a formal evil.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 01:35 PMWow. Compromise is evil?! Um, how's that again? Gee. Um. Okay. That is arguable the most insane thing I have ever heard you say.
Anyway...
Another statistical endeavor would be to see how close the election was in some of those very red or very blue states. This is a quote from Cathy, an Indiana resident:
Nearly a million people in Indiana voted for Kerry. Nearly three million in Texas did. More Hoosiers voted for Kerry than did Connecticutians. But thanks to the electoral college system, not a damn one of those votes mattered.Now, aside from her brief vent about the electo9ral college, it is an interesting point. How red is that state really? How close was the election there. That would be cool to find out as well. The entirety of Chicago did not vote for Kerry. Um, you may be an example of that. No? It must go the otehr way as well. The regional polarization factor may not be as strong as we think it is. Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 01:41 PM
Tripp:
Read my comment on compromise again, and don't just give a knee jerk reaction.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 01:42 PMLarry:
No, I don't think the numbers are quite so monolithic. That's the nature of statistics, there are always exceptions. On the other hand, how else is one going to interpret such numbers. I've given what I think is a fairly objective intepretation of what is meant by "moral values"--though you and anyone else are free to offer up competing evidence and competing interpretations.
The hypocrisy charge always cuts both ways. How many anti-war activists are always pro-abortion? How many of the folks that wax eloquent about compassion for the poor are the entertainment elites who get a whole bunch of money for doing what is mostly ephemeral work? So, when it comes to things like "well they may be for traditional marriage, but they get divorced just like blue staters" or as Justin pointed out (not his exact words here) "Massachusetts isn't traditional marriage like Kansas, but it has a better divorce rater"--and the attempt to gut the authenticity of the "moral values votes" one can always respond in kind.
I've lived in blue counties and red counties. The numbers add up for me.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 01:48 PM"Some compromise." I know.
I see all compromise as a gift of self for the other. Compromise does not mean that everyone gets to be happy. Compromise is usually transitory/transitional/temporary. If for no other reason, it is a good thing.
Compromise allows for schism, in this case political and federal, to have room to dissipate. As you said, Billary did not compromise. It was shot down by the people. Bush too may get shot down. We shall see.
I wonder, if after our "moderate" conversation via email, the moderates are more interested in compromise than you realize. I dunno. Maybe I am wrong.
There is no way to know how many of the people who voted for Bush actually were more accurately not voting for Kerry. I wonder how many Republicans who voted in an act of party allegiance will not stand with some of what you hope Bush has a mandate for.
These are all rhetorical on some level, but I do wonder.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 01:49 PMGreat link, Tripp. Thanks.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 01:54 PMCliff:
exactly my point, "moral values" and hypocrisy cut accross the divide. If we are in a criss in this country and its about midiocrity and a lack of authenticity, at least from where I stand. Remeber I didn't vote. I don't stand with the Blues, except in that I disagree with a hell of a lot of the Bush adminstration policies, though not all. I don't think I fit into these categories that are being bantered about.
Exceptions can be quite a monkey wrench in objectivity.
Tripp:
I think it's pretty well established, if you look at polling data leading up to the election, that people voting for Bush did so in overwhelming numbers precisely because of who he is and what he stands for. There was relatively little "anyone but Kerry." On the flip side, it's also been pretty well established by the same polls that Kerry voters were much more motivated by "anyone but Bush."
On pragmatic matters, sometimes compromise is a good thing as you note. If you and I both believe we have an obligation to the poor, but disagree on how the government should play in that, we may compromise our pragmatics, to a degree, without compromising our convictions.
On abortion, however, there can be no real compromise. But then anti-abortionists will likely not have hardly any opportunities to actually vote their views. The best that they can hope to accomplish, in the short term, is a limitation on what abortions get done (partial birth abortion ban, parental notification laws, and so forth).
But for me to say, okay, maybe we can kill unborn babies up to twelve weeks, then I've just given the lie to my conviction.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 02:01 PMLarry:
I'm sorry, exceptions prove the rule rather than obliterate it.
But as I said, if you wish to argue differently, I'm ready to listen.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 02:03 PMHoleee Crap.
Look what I started ;-)
I just wanted to say it was a pretty map, but not a Seurat (my fav. artist)
Posted by: justin at November 5, 2004 03:23 PMJustin:
A correction. In 1984, Reagan garnered 54,455,000 votes. Kerry has garnered (as the count has progressed thus far) 52,166,068. Kerry would not have beaten the 1984 Reagan, though he would have beaten the 1980 Reagan: 43,901,812 votes.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 03:44 PMMy Bad...double checked my source...my eyes just crossed when looking at a page full of numbers.
Maybe that explains my deficenciey in math...yes, spelling, too.
Cliff,
My point isn't really exceptions. It is that "moral values" aren't the property of one side of these debates. Granted the Democrats are deathly affraid of the term but, thats there secularist interpretation of politics. Sojouners shows that you can oppose a Bush and still believe you are about "moral values".
Larry:
Ah. I've been way off in responding to you. Sorry.
Larry:
Ah. I've been way off in responding to you. Sorry.
No, I have no doubt that Kerry supporters have moral values. But if you look at my other post today ("Issue That Tipped the Election") you'll see that I exegete concrete moral values from the election and exit polls.
So at issue: the red counties prevailed on the sort of moral values that should inform and influence government, as well as, for some, the measure of importance one should give to one's moral values in comparison to other issues.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 04:04 PMBut all the issues in this election were about moral values...right, your exegetical logic may be helpful on some level, but for this left-leaning heretic, it was ALL about morality. I think Justin's post is helpful here. We have to ask what moral framework we are living into as a country. There is no such singular framework.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 04:13 PMTripp:
It is my hope that we are living into the moral value framework that was made evident in the support that pushed Bush over the top on votes.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 04:15 PMCliff,
At times we talk past each other. I missed that your point about "moral values" were about those the government should care about and those the government should not care about. (this is perhaps another discussion)
Also, I was not responding directly to you. But to the way I percieve Bush and the Republicans using the language of "moral values" to gain and retain power. And it doing so play on the hypocritical self-righteousness of many. Granted Democrats are not above this they simply use a differing language and appeal in an attemtp to attain similar ends and to use a differing type of self-righteousness.
Do remember I am pretty soured on both sides.
Cliff:
I am aware of your preference here. ;-)
What I am curious about is the moral framework presented by others that does not line up with W's...or whomever is in power. The system of checks and ballances plays in on all of this, but I am not seeing where Bush himself is willing to bend a little on his platform. You may not think that it is necessary for him to do so. I think that it is.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."This is his oath. How he interprets this is what I wonder. I know, who can say? This is impossible to answer. But our values play into our interpretations of this document. Duh. I know. But I wonder how he construes "protecting traditional marriage" from this charge, for example. He has to anmmend the constitution to make it work. Otherwise, his agenda is not in line with his oath.
All presidents push this line. All of 'em. That is part of their implicit job description, but I think W pushes it really hard, and he makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 04:54 PMActually, Tripp, it's fairly straightforward what Bush believes about the Constitution: strict constructionism. That's the standard for his judges, it's hard to see how it's not his own views. Look at faith-based initiatives, advocacy of the unborn, and so on.
Yep. Believe it or not, it's possible to be a responsible U. S. citizen, and one o' them thar crazy funnamennallist red staters!
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 05:53 PMWhat is constructionism.
Posted by: AngloBaptist at November 5, 2004 08:43 PMFrom here: Strict Constructionism and Constitutional Interpretations
There are three forms of strict constructionism: historical, structural, and textual.
The historical form, often used by libertarians, relies on historical context and attempts to interpret the constitution according to the views of its framers and particularly those of the federalist papers. . . .
The structural form is the most analytical one, and relies on the structures the constitution itself outlines; in other words, it infers from explicit clauses unresolved or ambiguous issues. This is the form of strict construction that underlies judicial review, for instance. . . .
We're left with the last form of strict construction, the textual one. It is the most pedantic but also the one that can be applied the most, and it is based on literal reading of the test. Hence, the first amendment guarantees separation of church and state but not freedom from religion, and freedom of assembly and petition but not of association. . . .
If I were guessin', I'd say Bush aligns with either the first or last meaning.
Posted by: Clifton D. Healy at November 5, 2004 09:04 PM