Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Spring Fund Drive: Keep CounterPunch Afloat
CounterPunch is a lifeboat of sanity in today’s turbulent political seas. Please make a tax-deductible donation and help us continue to fight Trump and his enablers on both sides of the aisle. Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Who Killed Cock Robin?

Many on the soi-disant Left in the US are saying that the Republican victory is due to the Christian Right, and some conclude then that the paramount task for the Left is to attack religion (forgetting perhaps the conscious ambiguity in the famous image of the people’s painkiller). Recalling the truism that, in the absence of a correct analysis, the best will in the world can only err, we might try to find out why Bush won. Who voted for him?

Bush won by more than 3.5 million votes, after losing by a half million in 2000. And almost 80% of those voters said that they’d made up their minds more than a month ago on whom to vote for. Contrary to early reports, turn-out this year wasn’t much higher than usual — almost half of the eligible voters didn’t vote. First-time voters, who tended to vote for Kerry, were only 11% of those voting.

More women voted than men, and more of them voted for Kerry than Bush (but not so many as voted for Gore). A high percentage of white men and a low percentage of non-white women voted for Bush — 88% of all African- Americans voted for Kerry (but Gore got 90%). People under thirty were the least-likely age group to vote — but the most likely to vote for Kerry.

The more money you made, the more likely you were to vote Republican. More than half of people with incomes under $50,000 voted for Kerry; more than half of those with incomes over $50,000 voted for Bush — and many more of them voted. Union members voted for Kerry 3-2 and they turned out more than non-union members, but they still made up less than 15% of the electorate, because there are so few union members in the country. Gun-owners however made up more than 40% of voters, and they went 3-2 for Bush. On education levels, only those with some post-graduate education tended to vote for Kerry, but they were only 16% of the electorate; all others tended to vote for Bush.

Over half of the voters were Protestant, and almost 60% of them voted for Bush. Over a quarter were Catholic, and just over half of them voted for Bush. Jews on the contrary voted for Kerry by 3-1 (Gore did better), but they were only 3% of the electorate. The more you went to church, the more likely you were to vote for Bush — but less than 10% of the electorate said religious faith was the most important characteristic of a candidate.

For all Kerry’s “reporting for duty” shtik, veterans favored Bush by 8% over non-veterans. Married people voted for Bush in the same percentage as veterans (57%), while the numbers were reversed for the unmarried.

Although 70% of voters said that they were “very concerned” about health care, they said the most important issues were moral values, terrorism, the economy, and Iraq (almost equally). Those who named moral values and terrorism voted overwhelmingly for Bush; the economy and Iraq, for Kerry. Remarkably, well over half of the voters said the US was safer from terrorism now than it was four years ago, although by 52%-46% they thought that the Iraq war had not made the US more secure.

Bush voters said the most important characteristic of their candidate was that he was a “strong leader” with a “clear stand on the issues”; Kerry voters, that he would “bring change.” A fourth of the electorate said that they were voting primarily against someone — 70% of them against Bush, 30% against Kerry. By 54%-41%, voters thought that Bush paid more attention to large corporations than to ordinary Americans. But two-thirds of the electorate thought Kerry’s attacks were unfair, while 60% thought that Bush’s were.

The typical Bush voter looks like a middle-aged married white man with an adequate income, a Protestant and perhaps a gun owner but not a union member, who probably attended college. Although he admits Iraq is a mess, he thinks Bush is a clear leader who has dealt strongly with terrorism even if he is backed by major corporate interests. He’s worried about “security,” both his own and the country’s — health care, and the fabric of American society. If he lives in Florida or Nevada, he may well have voted for a ballot initiative to raise the state’s minimum wage — which won by a large margin in those two Bush states.

He may belong to that group that Seth Ackerman describes: “their biggest concern is that they think the society and culture have gotten too selfish, which they equate with libertinism; in other words, they don’t really distinguish between the Enron exec who rips off his workers to pay for a luxury party in Greece and the mythical girl who gets an abortion so she can fit into her prom dress.” He sees Kerry as “weak, waffling, and weird” (in Paul Begala’s words), and he thinks Kerry’s attacks on Bush were unclear and unfair.

He doesn’t see himself as an idiot (unless perhaps he’s a Red Sox rooter) and he doesn’t think he gets his ideas unduly from his church; instead, he sees his religious participation as a way to express his social views — which American Evangelicalism has typically done, both in its progressive phase, when it was a mainstay of abolitionism and the labor movement, and when it turned socially conservative, about the time of the First World War.

Finally, it’s at least as reasonable to blame Bush’s election on women as it is to blame it on Evangelicals (i.e., not very reasonable at all). They make up about the same percentage of those voting (54%), but, while the percentage of women voting Republican increased by 5% over 2000, the percentage of Protestants voting Republican increased by only 3%. And by no means are all Protestants Evangelicals. If women had split their vote in 2004 as they did in 2000, Kerry would have won.

Most Americans understand that their presidential elections are a vast game played by big money, the PR industry and the media — corporate entities all. Those corporate interests throw up candidates whose differences are far more a matter of style rather than of substance. Therefore those who decide to vote choose the style they like, knowing that they’ll get about the same substance. Almost half don’t bother to choose, knowing that the choice will not make too much difference to their lives. Those who do, choose the candidate whose “character” suggests that he’ll hurt them least, largely by leaving them alone, and/or troubling other people.

On the matter of religion, it may have been rightly said that, if God had meant us to vote, She would have sent us candidates.

Carl Estabrook is a Visiting Scholar University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a CounterPunch columnist. He can be reached at: galliher@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

 

 

More articles by:
May 22, 2018
Jimmy Centeno
Mexico’s First Presidential Debate: All against One
May 21, 2018
Ron Jacobs
Gina Haspell: She’s Certainly Qualified for the Job
Uri Avnery
The Day of Shame
Amitai Ben-Abba
Israel’s New Ideology of Genocide
Patrick Cockburn
Israel is at the Height of Its Power, But the Palestinians are Still There
Frank Stricker
Can We Finally Stop Worrying About Unemployment?
Binoy Kampmark
Royal Wedding Madness
Roy Morrison
Middle East War Clouds Gather
Edward Curtin
Gina Haspel and Pinocchio From Rome
Juana Carrasco Martin
The United States is a Country Addicted to Violence
Dean Baker
Wealth Inequality: It’s Not Clear What It Means
Robert Dodge
At the Brink of Nuclear War, Who Will Lead?
Vern Loomis
If I’m Lying, I’m Dying
Valerie Reynoso
How LBJ initiated the Military Coup in the Dominican Republic
Weekend Edition
May 18, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Donald, Vlad, and Bibi
Robert Fisk
How Long Will We Pretend Palestinians Aren’t People?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Wild at Heart: Keeping Up With Margie Kidder
Roger Harris
Venezuela on the Eve of Presidential Elections: The US Empire Isn’t Sitting by Idly
Michael Slager
Criminalizing Victims: the Fate of Honduran Refugees 
John Laforge
Don’t Call It an Explosion: Gaseous Ignition Events with Radioactive Waste
Carlo Filice
The First “Fake News” Story (or, What the Serpent Would Have Said)
Dave Lindorff
Israel Crosses a Line as IDF Snipers Murder Unarmed Protesters in the Ghetto of Gaza
Gary Leupp
The McCain Cult
Robert Fantina
What’s Wrong With the United States?
Jill Richardson
The Lesson I Learned Growing Up Jewish
David Orenstein
A Call to Secular Humanist Resistance
W. T. Whitney
The U.S. Role in Removing a Revolutionary and in Restoring War to Colombia
Rev. William Alberts
The Danger of Praying Truth to Power
Alan Macleod
A Primer on the Venezuelan Elections
John W. Whitehead
The Age of Petty Tyrannies
Franklin Lamb
Have Recent Events Sounded the Death Knell for Iran’s Regional Project?
Brian Saady
How the “Cocaine Mitch” Saga Deflected the Spotlight on Corruption
David Swanson
Tim Kaine’s War Scam Hits a Speed Bump
Norah Vawter
Pipeline Outrage is a Human Issue, Not a Political Issue
Mel Gurtov
Who’s to Blame If the US-North Korea Summit Isn’t Held?
Patrick Bobilin
When Outrage is Capital
Jessicah Pierre
The Moral Revolution America Needs
Binoy Kampmark
Big Dead Place: Remembering Antarctica
John Carroll Md
What Does It Mean to be a Physician Advocate in Haiti?
George Ochenski
Saving Sage Grouse: Another Collaborative Failure
Sam Husseini
To the US Government, Israel is, Again, Totally Off The Hook
Brian Wakamo
Sick of Shady Banks? Get a Loan from the Post Office!
Colin Todhunter
Dangerous Liaison: Industrial Agriculture and the Reductionist Mindset
Ralph Nader
Trump: Making America Dread Again
George Capaccio
Bloody Monday, Every Day of the Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail