Getting the voters values

Dan Schnur:

Ever since Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Pennsylvania voters first surfaced in the public sphere late last week, the scions of the political community have talked of little else. Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns focused on the word “bitter” — allowing Senator Obama’s supporters to engage in a largely semantic discussion about whether economically disadvantaged Americans were “bitter” or “angry” or “frustrated.” But this is a meaningless series of distinctions even in this super-charged political environment. It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words, though, is the world view underneath them. By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

These voters — known as “the silent majority” in the 1970s, as “Reagan Democrats” in the ’80s, and as “values voters” during the last two election cycles — have long been one of the most sought-after prizes in national elections. But with the exception of the occasional Southerner on the ticket, Democratic presidential candidates and their advisers have been continually vexed by the unwillingness of blue-collar Americans to more reliably vote their economic interests.

In his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank articulates essentially the same case that Senator Obama has made in recent days. Mr. Frank complains that Republicans have deceived blue-collar Kansans — and their colleagues in other states — into voting against their own economic interests by distracting them into a conversation about traditional values and cultural concerns. Both Senator Obama and Mr. Frank seem to be saying that economic policy should be more important to voters than social and cultural questions.

For many people, that’s certainly true. But there are plenty of other voters who don’t necessarily base their votes solely on jobs and taxes, and many of them are quite financially successful. They have determined their political affiliations largely as a result of the same continuing battles over abortion, guns and same-sex marriage that have drawn so many working-class voters to Republican candidates over the years. The only difference is the side of the fight they’ve chosen. It’s hard to argue that a wealthy pro-choice Democrat is any less of a values voter than a pro-life construction worker who votes Republican.

...

Democrats have been searching for a reason for voter rejection of their message since the 1970s. That is when they decided to become losers on foreign policy and national security. Their world view was that losing in Vietnam was a winner for them and they continue that world view today with a desperate desire to lose the war in Iraq. They want that war to be a disaster so they can use it as a reason to oppose the use of force in the future. The only time they have had any recent success was when Americans did not feel threatened by foreign enemies.

While many of these voters may be disappointed by our failure to wrap up the Iraq operation in a timely manner, they still are smarter than Democrats when they look at the consequences of losing as the Democrats desire. These voters may disagree with McCain on many issues, but this one will trump all others when a Democrat is on the other side. That these same voters are religious and support 2nd Amendment rights is, I think, a coincidence. Democrats and the media have been further confused by polling indicating that the war is unpopular.

The false assumption is that everyone who is unhappy with the war is against winning. Wrong. Many of the voters have been voting for McCain in big numbers because they think he will fight more effectively and win the war sooner.