Following the election, it has become all the more painfully clear that too many of our campus’ most vocal, politically active students are living in a shell. I should ask you, the reader: did you attend a “party” to watch the results of the election with any Bush supporters? Can any of you claim to have had more than one or two among a large group of Kerry supporters? My guess, based on my experience in the law school, would be no.
What is most unfortunate about the current coolness of being in the ‘in’ crowd (read: the Democratic Party) is that, each time the little club gets routed in a national election (a common occurrence), all the posing about open-mindedness and inclusion goes out the window. How common were the cries, “How can so many people be so stupid?” and the silent nodding that “Bush voter” equals “stupid.” If you’re honest, you know it’s perfectly common for Democrats to say what they really think of the South on Nov. 3. Of course, Southern states are smart enough to know this on Nov. 2.
A look at Gallup polls from the election shows that reality is much different from: “Bush won on hating gays, stupidity and an onslaught of Christian Fundamentalism.” If intelligence can roughly be gauged by education, it could be asserted Bush voters are smarter. After all, Bush got 58% of all voters with a college degree as opposed to Kerry’s 42%. Bush got 56% to Kerry’s 44% of all voters with “some college education.” Kerry, however, had an 8% lead in the “high school or less” category. At the very least, the “a Bush voter is a dumb person” meme should be dropped.
Another problem is the “hatred of gays” label attached to these faceless Red-staters. There was a lot of talk about turnout for Bush in the 11 states that had gay-marriage issues on the ballot. The assumption is that this meant a windfall of homophobic votes was delivered to Bush. This ignores the entire debate about the issue and casts one side very poorly. Also, it omits the fact that, in most states, the measures passed with 80% approval, meaning that if all Bush voters chose to ban gay marriage, Kerry still got 30% of that group. Eight of the states were “Bush-safe states” while three were battleground states. Bush only won one of those three, Ohio, and his overall gain nationwide (2.9% more voters chose Bush than in 2000) was greater than the 2.6% increase in the states with such initiatives.
Democrats need to stop calling people without whom they can’t win dumb. They lost this election because the Republicans maintained their base and were better organized in battleground states. An indication of this is the inroads Bush made in the Democratic base. Is a converted Bush voter stupid? One example noted by Roger Simon is that Gore got 76% of the Jewish vote in Beverly Hills in 2000, while Bush got nearly 43% in 2004. Bush netted 8% more in Hollywood as well.
Perhaps most scary for the Anybody-but-Bush crowd was the Hispanic community’s 45% turnout for Bush. Long a centerpiece of Democratic power in California, New Mexico and the like, it must be disheartening to see a people so ungracious for their imposed welfare-addiction and dual language schools that get them nowhere. This coincides with a trend that shows, across many states, that liberal enclaves, not just California, but New York city and down the line, are governed by popular Republican moderates who fit so poorly into the stereotype of what a Republican is as to make it indefensibly foolish.
In summary, Democrats have a host of problems. On top of the list, they don’t know themselves, their opponents or the American people particularly well. The future of the Republican Party is Giuliani, Schwarzenegger and McCain, and none of these men has any of the weaknesses that Democrats have lazily pointed to in their talking points memos. Word of advice: stop calling people you need stupid, learn something about the Red states and nominate Obama… fast.