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:

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: When Just One Man Says, “No”
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party: Part Two
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail