They are now justifying their position on the Social Security in terms of the moral absolutes of right and wrong and presenting the president with a letter laced with Bible verses in response to his budget proposal.
No, I am not describing the latest pursuits of Focus on the Family. These are the deeds of the once-mighty Democratic leadership.
To what do we owe this sudden display of Democratic dogma? We owe it to the star of the 2004 elections-values! \Values"" is the most feared-and now frequently uttered-word of the political lexicon. But the left's conversion to convention is premature. The idea that those who voted with homosexual newlyweds and Jane Roe on their mind re-elected the president is mere myth. Rather, it was the voters who cast their ballots in the name of national security and the war on terror who kept the president in the White House.
Much has been made of the fact that among the voters who cited ""moral issues"" as their deciding factor, Bush was the overwhelming favorite (80 percent). But the vast majority of these voters tended to be from undisputed Bush strongholds. Furthermore, in 2000, those who voted by way of values chose Bush over Gore by a similar margin. If the Democrats are wondering where the extra votes for Bush came from in 2004, values are not the answer.
Bush got these votes with foreign policy, meaning the war on terror. In 2000, less than 15 percent of voters cited foreign affairs as their electoral cause and most of them favored Gore. Fast forward to the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Americans suddenly exhibit a keenness for foreign affairs.
In November, 34 percent mentioned either Iraq or terrorism as their reason for deciding. Bush carried voters who cited terrorism by an even greater margin than their moral issues counterparts. This is what should have sounded the Democrats clarion call for reassessment, not the moral values rubbish. Paul Freedman of Slate and Peter Beinart of The New Republic pointed out that if you give Bush the same share of the vote as he received in 2000, ""a 10-point increase in the percentage of voters citing terrorism as the most important problem translates into a three-point gain. The identical gain in morality votes, on the other hand, has no effect."" The three-point advantage gives Bush-guess what-a 51-48 win.
The message to be taken away from 2004 is clear: Even though the Democrats managed to convince America to trust them with their wallets, health and education, it didn't matter, because they couldn't convince America to trust them with their lives.
So how did the party that nominated a thrice wounded war hero manage to get characterized as a bunch of whining wimps? For starters, Bush and Co. convinced the voting public (53 percent) the war in Iraq and the war on terror were one and the same, before Kerry was even afforded an audience. Secondly, once provided an audience, it took Kerry six months to articulate his position. No one knew where he stood on Iraq until a week before the first debate. Contrast this to the fact that no one on earth doubted Bush's position on Iraq and terrorists-the deader the better. Jon Stewart said it best-""He may have driven us into a brick wall, but he never blinked!""
The most important consideration, however, was the fact that the Democrats never provided a coherent, unified alternative to the president's course of action. On one side you had Senator Joe Biden of Delaware saying the President never sent in enough troops, and on the other hand you have MoveOn.org airing an ad that claimed the war was illegal.
It was utter chaos. How were Democrats, and liberals in general, supposed to make others agree with them when they couldn't even agree among themselves? Too many high-profile ""Democrats"" like Michael Moore and a chorus of empty-headed Hollywood types droned on and on about the legality of the war rather than publicly supporting the Marines. They argued that America is the real state sponsor of terrorism and Saddam Hussein and crew are the real victims. Rather than oppose the tyrants, these liberals wanted to understand how they had been marginalized by history. All the GOP had to do was smile and make sure that America heard their message.
I hope that in the future the Democratic Party can present an alternative-but just as resolute-version of the current war on terror. The party risks political damnation if they think a simple liberal dose of ""moral values"" will return them to power. When it comes to issues, terrorism trumps all and is truly invaluable.
opinion@dailycardinal.com.
