Wash. Post advanced myth that social conservatives are only constituency who vote their values
SUMMARY: In an article on an upcoming event sponsored in part by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, The Washington Post called the conference a gathering of "[v]alues voters," and uncritically reported its claim that it is "the largest gathering of values voters from across the nation" -- joining other media outlets in advancing the myth that social conservatives are the only political constituency that votes their "values."
Reporting that an upcoming event called the "Washington Briefing," sponsored in part by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, will "feature appearances by all eight major Republican presidential candidates," The Washington Post claimed, in an October 15 article -- "Values Voters to Meet GOP Candidates" -- that "[i]t's a Values Voters weekend in Washington" and uncritically reported the event's claim that it is "the largest gathering of values voters from across the nation." At the end of the article, after reporting that "[Focus on the Family founder and chairman James] Dobson also has a dim view of the candidacy of former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.)," the Post added: "Values voters can decide for themselves whether Thompson could be their Great Hope; the Washington Briefing also includes a straw poll."
By adopting the label "[v]alues voters" used by the sponsoring organizations, the Post joined other media outlets -- as documented by Media Matters for America -- in advancing the myth that social conservatives are the only political constituency that votes their "values." Conservative columnist George F. Will wrote in his May 18, 2006, Washington Post column, titled "Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?" that the phrase "values voters" "is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives." He added, "This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to ... well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots."
Similarly, on the October 7 edition of ABC's This Week, Will stated: "[T]here's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves 'values voters.' I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are 'values voters'; they vote their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have when they say, 'We vote values' -- everyone else votes what?' "
The New York Times' political blog The Caucus, in an entry written by reporter Michael Luo, reported that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won the "Values Voter Debate," a Republican presidential straw poll, and uncritically quoted a debate committee member saying that "values voters have spoken" and that "values voters moved from the back of the bus to the driver's seat."
The October 15 Post article also reported that the event, which begins October 18, will conclude on Sunday, October 21, "with a morning worship service featuring FRC president Tony Perkins." But the article did not mention Perkins' reported ties to both the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) -- which the Southern Poverty Law Center characterizes as a "white nationalist" organization -- and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.
While Perkins and other high-profile conservatives are often treated as representative of those conservative voters whom the media characterize as more concerned than others with family values, Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman, in a December 14, 2005, article, raised the question of what their "values" actually encompass, asking: "Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?" The article quoted Perkins as saying: "There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. ... But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility." The article also reported that Perkins "said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts."
From the October 15 Post article:
It's a Values Voters weekend in Washington, beginning Thursday evening with a film screening of "Bella," the latest release from the executive producer of "The Passion of the Christ," and concluding Sunday with a morning worship service featuring Family Research Council President Tony Perkins.
The event, billed as the Washington Briefing, will also feature appearances by all eight major Republican presidential candidates. Sponsored in part by Perkins's group and by Focus on the Family, evangelical leader James Dobson's organization, it claims to be "the largest gathering of values voters from across the nation."
[...]
Giuliani set off talk of a third-party candidate, but he is not the only one who faces the prospect of an unfriendly crowd. Dobson also has a dim view of the candidacy of former senator Fred D. Thompson (Tenn.). "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to,' " Dobson wrote last month about the late entrant into the GOP race. "And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Values voters can decide for themselves whether Thompson could be their Great Hope; the Washington Briefing also includes a straw poll.
From the September 18 Caucus post:
For all those wondering whether Mitt Romney can break through among Christian conservatives, add this data point: he was the only candidate who received zero votes in a straw poll after last night's Values Voters Debate, an event he and the other leading Republican contenders decided to skip.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was the runaway winner with 64 percent of the vote, raising anew the question of whether Christian conservative leaders and voters might be able to coalesce around him as a longshot candidate and propel him to the first tier in the Republican race.
[...]
The event was streamed live on ValuesVoterDebate.com and the ... American Family Association's Web site. It was also broadcast by a pair of Christian radio networks.
Janet Folger, a member of the debate's host committee and president of Faith 2 Action, a group that works to unite "pro-family" organizations, excoriated the candidates who skipped the event, especially Mr. Thompson and Mr. Romney who are angling for conservative votes, and said their non-participation would cost them.
"They have the mentality of, 'Look, we're going to get you guys anyway because you don't have anywhere to go,'" she said. "What literally happened last night is values voters moved from the back of the bus to the driver's seat. We're now going to see a united front."
She said that many Christian conservatives had been praying for a clear winner to emerge from the debate, which is what happened. As a result, she said, she will be casting her lot in now with Mr. Huckabee.
"The values voters have spoken," she said. "It's loud and clear. It's unmistakable."
From the October 7 edition on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
WILL: Social conservatives should grow up. I mean, we -- if they want to rally around somebody, why don't they try that? Huckabee needs support and money --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good idea.
WILL: -- now, and if the social conservatives are half as important as they think they are, they would rally around one of these people.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): So, either beat Rudy Giuliani in the primaries or make a deal with him?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then, who are the --
WILL: And then decide whether -- what you care about. If you care about judges --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Right.
WILL: -- you're going to get satisfied by Giuliani, and then get in line and play politics. But, you know, there's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves "values voters." I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are "values voters"; they vote their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have when they say, "We vote values" -- everyone else votes what?
I understand the need to counter the argument that non-conservatives are not "values" voters, but please, please, let's not shun such conservative-confusing concepts such as "logic", "reason", and "reality" when we vote.
Why doesn't the left just get over the fact that this "value voter" has become part of the political lexicon to identify socially conservative voters? It's another media label, part of the vernacular that is essentially meaningless to most people either way.
Besides it isn't always a positive connotation that emanates from the "value voter" label....many view these people as stodgy, inflexible, highly partisan, one-or-two issue voters whose primary focus is forcing their morality down other people's throats - rightly or wrongly, that is many's view of "value voters"
Why shouldn't people be corrected when they use misnomers? Or that by labeling something in some fashion that it seems to exclude everyone else and it is wrong, that the term should stop being used?
Because corporate media loves the term doesn't mean it should be in use still.
You are free to correct whatever misnomer you'd like, but to get all upset over something that has become so identifiable with a particalur voting block is basically spinning your wheels.
Why not just concede the term, it's actually more negative, in my opinion, than positive anymore.
It's not as negative as someone who isn't a 'values voter.'
I would agree with you if we were using the term: 'Soccer Moms,' or 'NASCAR dad's' but we're not. We are talking about values, and it is one more way for the Conservative media, and Republicans to paint Liberals as something they aren't--value deficient.
They play this childish game in many ways, ie: "Democrat Party, Defeatocrats, Godless, Tax-N-Spend, and on and on." Rush Limbaugh has made a career out of bastardizing the word liberal: "LLLLLLibrul." When in truth, it's the Republican party leaders who break the rules and laws, and then complain when the media covers the story, branding them--Liberal Media.
They play these games for one reason--IT WORKS! But, only on the simple minded segment of their party, many of whom believe themselves to be "Values Voters." Most Democrats don't fall this crap because it doesn't work on people who think.
For the latest list of republican values, look here!
The GOP likes little boys
Which explains why they put loopholes in child pornography laws
But at least our soccer fields are safe from headscarf wearing muslim girls
And we can rest easily knowing republicans ask the hard questions of 12 year old accident victims
Maybe that explains the GOP sense of humor
Oh sure why not concede the frame of ALL arguments to the rightwing. Thats great advice to the left FROM a conservative poster.
Well, you may have a point. It's kind of like certain name brands that have lost their Trademark and become part of the vernacular...only in reverse. Cellophane and Elevator come to mind...Xerox almost followed.
Social conservatives have taken the generic term "values" and claimed it as their own...a perfect example of how powerful their propaganda machine truly is.
It seems to have started with Dan Quayle's "Family Values" speech, but it may have been around before that.
Cellophane and Elevator come to mind...Xerox almost followed.
2 more examples: Kleenex, Vaseline
Nerzog, when I hear "Values Voters", I generally think of the Religious Right. I've probably been brainwashed by the media, for thinking that way. I don't think Social Conservative coined "value voters"...I agree with Tommy that it was the media.
Exactly Jeter, your narrowing of it is better than what I said. Religious right is perfect and it does not leave a positive taste for many people. In fact, it connotates more negativity than anything else.
Jeter and Tommy;
If the term 'value voters' refers to the'religious right', why not just use the term "religious right'?
I beleive that the term 'religious right' has more negative conotations than the term 'value voters'.
If I were a member of a group being charactereized by the media, I would make an effort to encourage said media to use a characterization witch had the most positive conotations. It would be especially sweet if such a characterization allowed my group a monopoly on the positive conotations associated with the term in question.
As a member of a group being disenfranchised from the positive conotations inherent in the word value, I see no reason to sit back and accept the media's or the religious rights' or anyone else's cooptation of those positive conotations.
"Why doesn't the left just get over the fact that this "value voter" has become part of the political lexicon to identify socially conservative voters? It's another media label, part of the vernacular that is essentially meaningless to most people either way."--Tommy
I completely disagree. It's like saying Liberal or Democratic voters have no values. Words mean things, and these words are as much a smear against Lib/Dems as they are a much appreciated label by Con/Repubs.
When you hear the term "value voter", do you have a positive or negative image?
Ask a self-proclaime 'conservative' that question - 10 to 1 they'll say 'positive'.
I don't believe I said "conservative", I said "value voter". Conservatives have many more issues they care about than the "value" issues - whereas value voters seem to vote on those issues alone, or as much as the implication suggests.
Well, a guy like Will ain't talking about so-called 'liberals' when he says 'values voters'... he's talking about Republicans.
You apparently have been able to squeeze out very fine distinctions re the 'values' he's talking about... I do not. It's a made-up, bogus form of referring to the same thing - Republicans... or those who would vote for a Republican candidate.
No it is not. It is a very narrow defined group of voters who choose candidates based on their socially conservative stances on issues, all other issues pale in comparison to these.
Many other Republican voters are just as concerned with a variety of other issues ahead of the value ones - or at least consider many others.
Again, I think that's adding an aire of legitimacy to this nonsense. And, the last time I checked... using the word "Kleenex" to refer to tissue didn't have any sort of judgement attached to it. There certainly is 'brand recognition'...
So, as a conservative... who apparently does not associate himself with the 'values voter' set... one could logically conclude that you are 'valueless'... Me too. I guess we're all on the same team. It's all nonsense...
You are free to conclude whatever you'd like. Politics is not some literal science, it is as much about impressions and images and labels as anything. I don't vote exclusively on "values" as they are identified by the media, as in abortion, etc......in fact it isn't way up there for me at all.
The "values" I vote on are honesty and straighforwardness in policy and issues. Whether or not a politician is mired in some abortion debate or it's labeling is irrelevant to me.
Well... (somewhat sheepishly)... as I said, this sort of absurd word-smithing really gets my goat. Of course, you're correct. I'm correct... and, Will's last paragraph is correct. But, I do think this political 'branding' is real phenomenon ... people latch onto it... start to believe it. That bothers me. If you have a working brain, you (one) may not be as susceptible. But, the sheer volume (much like incessant TV commercials) have an influence... I don't know.
If it's 'essentially meaningless' then why is it being used? What is the point?
It's meaningless to most people outside the beltway, voters who know everthing has a label for political identifiers. The media uses labels like this all the time.......and I still maintain it's not such a flattering label at all.
If it is a negative, then would "Valueless Voters," be preferable?
Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand how you and Jeter actually believe that 'Values Voters' sounds negative, especially the way the Republican's harp on values. This is a label they've begged for.
When I hear "Values Voters" I think of people who vote based on the results of the pro life, anti-gay marriage, creationism litmus tests. If a candidate passes these tests then it's ok to vote for them, even if they are a despicable hack politician like Tom Delay.
Exactly. That is why this tactic works so well on those who prefer to let others do their thinking for them.
Thankyou. Also, the litmus tests are massaged and modified by Dobson, Phelps et al so that the candidate that licks their back side the best is the only one that can pass the current tests.
Don't lump Dobson in with Phelps. You know that's not right. Phelps is a sick man who protests at soldiers' funerals and openly hates everybody who disagrees with him. Practically NOBODY agrees with his views. Even most people on the right disagree with him. Dobson has socially conservative views, but he's a very nice man who shares his views in a civil way. He has a great organization that mainly focuses on helping parents raise their kids. Dobson is not a bad man in any way.
Thats your opinion. I dont like the man at all.
It's meaningless to most people outside the beltway, voters who know everthing has a label for political identifiers. The media uses labels like this all the time.......and I still maintain it's not such a flattering label at all.
No, it's not meaningless. Certainly not to those that consider themselves "values voters" and the arbiter of what those values are.
It's a loaded phrase. It's biased. Those voters who consider themselves THE values voters are as free as anyone to use the phrase. A supposed unbiased, fair media should not be in the business of selling that phrase to the country.
If the media wants to refer to religious voters, evangelicals, or right wing voters, they can use those terms. And everyone else has a legitimate claim of media bias when they hear only that segment of the population being referred to as "values voters."
"Just get over it!" - Tommy
Come on, Tom... That is weak at best. You perpetuate the mythology... catch 22 - can't complain too much...then one is a 'whiner'. But, if you don't complain enough... well, the lie becomes part of the political lexicon... too late. I guess timing is everthing.
In this particular instance... the phrase "Values voters" is a lie... a cover. But, negative connotation? Not to the people who believe it. Therefore, it should be countered... every time. Probably doesn't do much good (for the believers)...but, to the casual, semi-apathetic worker bee (like me)... it may make the difference. Spark someone to finally say, "What?!"
Of course value voter is not a negative to those that identify themselves as such, that is pretty obvious. I am talking about those that don't, and the label the media affixes to them.
We have different opinions on this.
Yes we do. In my mind, more chicanery by the likes of a guy like Will... pushing this nonsense that says 'hey...we're the good guys, the moral guys, the correct guys'. In fact, their actions haven't proven that at all.
Did you even read this, or are you just knee-jerking a slam against Will? He is actually arguing against using the term and thinks it's unfair.
Hmmm... oh. Yeah, I guess you're right on that score. My mistake. Got fired up before finishing the piece. My bad :-/
But, the point of the piece... I guess... is the WP uses the term freely, without explanation... I still stand by what I said. I think it's nonsense. I thought that's what the piece was about anyhow. I appreciate what Will said actually.
Its just this kind of framing that keeps a whole lot of people not terribly politically aware believing that a George Bush, who was an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy for the first forty years of his life, who became religious just in time to run for Governor after saying no one would ever out Jesus him again after losing his first run for Congress was the RELIGIOUS candidate over an Al Gore who has been a regular churchgoer his entire life and WENT TO DIVINITY SCHOOL. Just this kind of framing
It means different things to different people. But there has definitely been a trend to redefine liberal issues, ie poverty, labor, environment as not being moral values.
Because its WRONG and its misinformation I DEFINITLY vote my values when I vote. Just because it is an oft repeated piece of garbage doesnt mean it doesnt need correcting. Allowing one side to frame the argument is a loser for the side not fighting the frame
Ihave a conservative belief in the value of following the CONSTITUTION and will be voting my values come primary time - FOR RON PAUL!
Buried 60 minutes interview EXPOSES that Bush planned to attack Iraq AS SOON AS HE GOT INTO OFFICE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWkGhV3PsLo
Good luck getting that noticed. There are several witnesses who have written books or otherwise stated that there were plans for invading Iraq long before 9/11. It is also coming to light that the warrantless NSA wire taps were being expanded before 9/11, as well.
Also, there are numerous witnesses who have stated that the WMD intelligence was, at least, cherry-picked, and possibly exaggerated. Where is the investigation? What investigation? They spent 40 million dollars to nail Clinton for lying about a blowjob...yet we can't get them to even TALK about Bush's war crimes. Go figure.
Ok, let's settle this once and for all, it was the antics with the cigar that cooked his goose. Getting a BJ on the side is practically an accepted behavior these days, but ruin a perfectly good cigar and down you will go!
I will go with what Tommy has brought up and say, with a few exceptions, that being a "values voter" has a negative connotation these days (and really, "conservative" does too); it implies to me that one votes as if they would have the country run like they run their own household.
Will: "there's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves "values voters." I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are "values voters"
I don't often agree with George Will. But he's absolutely 1,000% correct here.
Adding that this "values voter" slogan is very similar to the lazy, incorrect usage of "pro-military" as being the same as being in favor of the Surge and/or staying in Iraq forever.
You just wonder if it is, in fact, laziness and sloppy editing at the Post, or something else. In any case, it is wrong.
Good question Dave...
I really don't think it's just laziness. These reporters know exactly what their doing. Well, they know exactly what they're "trying" to do.
George Will may be panicked that the evangelical vote is slipping away from Republicans, and advertising themselves as "values voters" is becoming a liability for Republicans.
I can guarantee you he wouldn't have said what he said unless he thought it would benefit the Republicans.
The wingnuts have always played word games to activate their base and confuse any discussion afterwards. As examples The No Child Left Behind Act and The Blue Skys Initiative. Who could be against either of those titles. What do they do? trust us with a name like that how could it be bad.
Hard to believe that I agree with George Will for once.
Wow, who would have thought that I would agree with George Will.
Republicans/conservatives started 'advertising style politics'. They created slogans, attached catchy phrases and MSM started using them. 'Value Voters', 'NASCAR Dads' just to name a few. As a New York Times article pointed out , Frank Luntz of the Luntz Research Companies in Alexandria, Va., who has been supplying Republicans with lethal locutions harvested from focus groups since working with Newt Gingrich on the Contract With America. Labels have been used to group people whether for good or bad. Republican/conservatives have become 'A' students at applying the labels and defining their meaning and MSM has helped make it stick. Stopping the labels and their incorrect meaning should be cheered by all. Simply ignoring them does not make them go away as we have seen over the past 10 years, they simply create new ones. Speaking out against them and trying to put a halt to their use gives them and the people who use them less power which is a good thing IMO.
The reason they call them "values voters" is because a lot of voters vote based on their own economic self interest. If they're poor, the generally vote for Democrats because they will get a lot of benefits from them. But some poor people still vote Republican because of their values. They are conservative on issues ranging from abortion to gay marriage to gun control. That's the reason that they are given that label. They aren't thought of as people who vote based off their own economic interests.
You could look at it that way. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" a book I found quite depressing. It shows how the lower income people of that state repeatedly voted against their own self interest because the right-wing used "wedge" issues to distract them from the actual policies that they were advocating.
In one case, a female state legislator speculated that perhaps women should not have the right to vote! The fact that she cast votes all the time in the legislature somehow didn't bother her...
But once a "values voter" wakes up to the horrible carnage of Iraq and its devastating consequences: human lives lost; untold suffering, borrowing our children's future to pay later for the military adventurism...we'll find a different frame altogether about what is moral and of value.
I haven't read the book. I've read reviews of it and know what it's about. I live in Kansas, and there are certainly a lot of socially conservative people here. But we're also more moderate than you may think. We've had a Democratic governor since 2000 and now have a Democratic attorney general. People here tend to vote conservative on national elections but more moderate on local elections.
I don't necessarily agree with the view that poor people are better off voting for Democrats, even though that is the commonly held view. I realize that they'll get more benefits in the short term, but I believe that in the long run they often get to depend to much on the government and don't have the drive to become successful on their own. I think that some of these programs end up hurting poor people in the long run because of the way they make poor people depend on the government. This is what I believe from a conservative point of view, and I'm sure that you disagree with that assessment. But I think that there are some poor people as well who view goverment programs as a form of charity and would rather simply try to make it on their own.
I think that some of these programs end up hurting poor people in the long run because of the way they make poor people depend on the government.
No government program makes you depend on it. If you choose to live your life that way, that's one thing. But everyone needs a little help now and then. Safety nets do not "make poor people depend on the government." That's simply a regressive myth.
I think you are overlooking what the Republican politicians are really doing in your fixation on "socialism" The monied elites are gutting the middle class and the blue collar worker has lost all job security; jobs are being outsourced via "free trade" (it really isn't free trade; corporations are given outrageous privileges including tax money)
People who have worked hard their whole lives have lost their pensions, their health care, their feeling of independence.
Yet the Republicans practice bait & switch techniques to divert these working class people into the wedge issues: Gays, guns & abortion. They claim to "own" these issues although there are no such simplistic divisions among the parties in real life.
So farming communities shrivel up, unions die, people go without health care, and only the wealthy benefit.
Really Rino...
What about all the wealthy people who vote liberal? Aren't they "values voters" as well? Oh, I'm sorry, only poor people who vote conservative are "values voters."
Seems your little theory has a few holes in it.
There's probably some rich liberals who vote based on their values. They probably believe in economic justice and are anti-war. So it probably would be accurate to label those people values voters as well.
I vote my VALUES. Clearly they werent talking about people like me. I am far from poor, I need no social programs and never have. I vote my values and yet somehow according to this frame I am not a value voter.
RINO brings up an important point. It is a leftist critique of our modern industrial society that the poor and middle class voter has an economic interest in voting for liberal policies.
Thomas Frank (the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas") just can't seem to understand why poor people just can't wait to vote for more government handouts and welfare benefits.
I think that the main thing to remember is that Marx was a "materialist" - this means that for the left, the only reality is the physical world we live in. there are not absolute moral values or principles. The only thing that counts is how much you can get from the government - like free cheese.
Yeah! Free cheese! If I'm a poor person, I should forget all my moral and spiritual values and just get in line for the fine government cheese... or at least that is the belief of lefties such as Thomas Frank.
Interesting take, BBJ. So the 1/2 of the country (mostly gainfully employed and not in need of govt. assistance at any time) who vote to ensure that we have certain safety nets in place for the small minority who may need them at some time, this 1/2 of the country is the greedy materialistic part.
And those who obsess over and vote for a tiny tax cut for themselves, and a shift of our common revenue to corporate welfare and war industries, are the more spiritual and altruistic.
BTW, I usually skip over your copy & paste comments, they're pretty dull, but I still really enjoy your personal philosophy (via Rush) posts.You may be giving Colbert a run for his money. Keep 'em coming!
Well you MIGHT think that way if you were really, REALLY stupid or if that is what Rush TOLD you to think. Why would the left care in any WAY what Marx thought? What relevance in the world does he have to liberal thinking? None of course which everyone NOT assimilated by the hivemind already knows. The thing is liberals like me ARE values voters, whose moral beliefs and moral values are at the very heart of how I vote. I dont NEED any entitlements, never have, that doesnt mean I dont want those in need helped. Those who think that ONLY those who are in need vote for seeing the needy helped cannot even UNDERSTAND the moral value in empathy. Your post was dumb. It made zero sense.
Treat everyone as a human being, stop poverty, stop bigotry & hatred, end this war and put an end all injustice, health care for all. Yeah, I guess that we liberals have no values.