More than a week has gone by since the election.  In an effort to explain their loss the Democrats have variously blamed the personality of their candidate and the fundamentalism of Republican voters.  While they are right that their candidate had no personality (not to mention having committed treason in the 1970’s) that is not the reason for their critical loss.  Nor was the religious predilection of Republican voters. 

David Brooks (New York Times, November 9, 2004) outlined the facts.  What follows is taken from his editorial commentary. BROOKS1109

“As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate that they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are prolife. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.” 

Brooks went on to state that “Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." That can mean anything -- or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.”

As Brooks noted, the Republican victory was not about moral values or gay rights or abortion issues.  “The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. And he did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.  He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and John Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq.  The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism.”

Most importantly, Brooks stated that “the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. Why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?  Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.”

The fact is that President Bush won re-election based on policy.  And he won despite the fact that he was opposed not only by Senator Kerry but also by the elite American broadcast and print media, by move-on.com and many other 527’s, by most European media outlets, by Hollywood elitists (most of whom at best only play patriots in the movies), by the anti-American propaganda of Michael Moore, and by publicly financed professors within our universities and colleges.  Against those odds President Bush still won by at least 3.5 million votes and brought along Congressional Republicans as well.  Given the odds, this was a remarkable victory.  As long as the far left refuses to admit that fact and as long as the Democrat Party continues to belittle those who voted for President Bush, they will fail again and again.  I guess that is just fine with me.