PDA

View Full Version : a mandate of ambivalence.




blackfox
Nov 22, 2004, 09:33 PM
From NYT:
After a brutally fought election campaign, Americans are optimistic about the next four years under President Bush, but they have reservations about central elements of the second-term agenda that Mr. Bush presented in defeating Senator John Kerry, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

At a time when the White House has portrayed Mr. Bush's 3.5-million-vote victory as a mandate, the poll found that Americans are at best ambivalent about Mr. Bush's plans to reshape Social Security, rewrite the tax code, cut taxes and appoint conservative judges to the bench. There is continuing disapproval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, with a plurality now saying it was a mistake to invade Baghdad the first place.

While Democrats, not surprisingly, were the staunchest opponents of many elements of Mr. Bush's second-term agenda, the concerns extended across party lines in some cases. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents - including 51 percent of Republicans - said it was more important to reduce federal budget deficits than to cut taxes, a central element of Mr. Bush's economic agenda.

The latest Times/CBS News poll also found pervasive concern about what Americans view as the corrosive effect of Hollywood and popular culture on the nation's values and moral standards. Seventy percent said they were very or somewhat concerned that television, movies and popular music are lowering moral standards in this country.

While this sentiment was voiced by supporters of President Bush and Mr. Kerry, it appears that the concern about a decline in values is becoming another point of polarization in American politics. Mr. Bush's supporters were more likely to cite it than Mr. Kerry's voters, and it was an issue that had particular resonance in the South and among weekly churchgoers, rural voters and women.

In addition, 70 percent of Mr. Kerry's supporters said they were more worried about candidates who "are too close to religion and religious leaders" than political leaders who "don't pay enough attention" to religion, after a campaign in which Mr. Bush repeatedly spoke of God and his faith. By contrast, 52 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters said they were more worried about public officials who "don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders."

Still, in a telling contrast with the 2000 election, 82 percent of respondents said that Mr. Bush legitimately won on Nov. 2. Just before Election Day, 50 percent of respondents said they considered Mr. Bush's defeat of Al Gore in 2000 a legitimate victory.

And even after this tense and vituperative campaign, 56 percent said they were generally optimistic about the next four years under Mr. Bush. The president's job approval rating has now inched up to 51 percent, the highest it has been since March.

The Times/CBS News poll was taken from Thursday through Sunday, after a three-week period in which some pollsters have questioned some of the findings of the survey of voters leaving polling places on Election Day. The nationwide telephone poll of 855 adults has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Across the board, the poll suggested that the outcome of the election reflected a determination by Americans that they trusted Mr. Bush more to protect them against future terrorist attacks - and that they liked him more than Mr. Kerry - than any kind of broad affirmation of his policies. As such, the result was reminiscent of the state of play Ronald Reagan found in 1980, when he defeated Jimmy Carter.

Even as two-thirds of respondents said they expected Mr. Bush to appoint judges who would vote to outlaw abortion, a majority continue to say they wanted the practice to remain either legal as it is now, which was Mr. Kerry's position, or to be legal but under stricter limits.

Americans said they opposed changing the Constitution to bar gay marriage, which Mr. Bush campaigned on during the final weeks of his campaign. A majority continue to support allowing either gay marriages or legally recognized domestic partnerships for gay people.

The public appears ambivalent about what Mr. Bush has identified as his two major domestic initiatives for a second term: rewriting the Social Security system and reshaping the tax code, including more tax cuts.

On the tax code, administration officials are discussing proposals that would, among other things, lower the tax rate on higher-income Americans while eliminating some deductions. In the poll, more than 6 in 10 of the respondents said people with higher incomes should pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes; 3 in 10 said all income groups should pay the same proportion.

About one-third of the respondents said the tax cuts passed in Mr. Bush's first term had been good for the economy; but nearly a fifth said they had done more harm, and just under half said the tax cuts had made little difference.

"I don't mind cutting taxes to some extent, but I think we've cut them quite a bit," Ron Clark, 63, a Republican from Livingston, Mont., said in a follow-up interview. "I'm not really against making the current reductions permanent, but I don't think we need to go beyond where we've gone, because I do worry about the deficit. It's gone up a heck of a lot in the last couple of years."

On Social Security, 45 percent said a proposal to permit people to invest their Social Security withholding money in private accounts was a bad idea; 49 percent said it was a good idea. The poll also found little confidence among Americans that Mr. Bush would assure the future solvency of the program: 51 percent said Mr. Bush was unlikely to "make sure Social Security benefits are there for people like me."Among the disputed results of the Election Day surveys of voters was the finding that moral issues were critical in determining the outcome.

That survey found that 22 percent of respondents called it the most critical issue in making their decision. Pollsters disputed the way the question was asked because it was presented as a general category, without any kind of explanation, along with a list of six other specific issues, like Iraq and health care.

In this poll, when allowed freely to name the issue that was most important in their vote, 6 percent chose moral values, although smaller numbers named such issues as abortion and gay marriage. On a separate question in which voters were given a choice of nine issues, 5 percent chose abortion, 4 percent chose stem cell research and 2 percent chose gay marriage.

The top issue was the economy and jobs, which was cited by 29 percent of respondents.

That said, there is a little question that Americans have grown increasingly unhappy with the influence of popular culture on daily life, and that was a significant dynamic in this election. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that Hollywood was lowering the standard of popular culture. And 70 percent said all elements of popular culture - music, movies and television - were lowering moral standards in America.

The poll also found, though, that Americans were evenly divided on whether television, movies and books are including too many gay themes and characters.

The poll and follow-up interview found that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters are in different camps on these issues, eyeing each other with suspicion.

"I think they're driven by hatred and homophobia and vitriol," said Paul Cuthbertson, 53, a Democrat from Atlanta. "The Republicans in recent years have turned 'liberal' into a dirty word, which it isn't. I'm a liberal and proud to be so. This so-called Christian ideal of being against gay marriage is neither American nor Christian. I think it's un-American to discriminate against fellow citizens, and God does not call upon Christians to be vigilantes to punish people that they perceive him not to like." Pat Gilbert, a Republican from Battle Creek, Mich., said: "The two sides will be as far apart as can be forever."

"I'm sure there are different pockets of voters who voted for Kerry, but I think they believe more in society in general - if you're not hurting anybody it's all right to do it," she said, adding: "I don't think they have a firm belief system that they base decisions off of. It's whatever today's climate is. In the long term you'll have a society of chaos."

By 48 percent to 40 percent, respondents said they believed four more years of a Bush presidency would divide the nation more than it would unite it.

For all the attention paid to the effort that Mr. Bush made to increase his support from religious supporters, 31 percent of respondents said they thought that evangelical Christians had too much influence over the administration. By contrast, 66 percent said they thought big business had too much influence over the administration.

The poll reflected the electoral feat of the Bush campaign this year. He won despite the fact that many Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy, foreign affairs and the war in Iraq. There has been a slight increase in the number of Americans who believe the nation should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. A majority of Americans continue to believe the country is going in the wrong direction, historically a warning sign for an incumbent.

Finally, in one bit of presumably good news for a party that is looking for it, Americans now have a better opinion of the Democratic Party than the Republicans: 54 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats, compared with 39 percent holding an unfavorable view. By contrast, 49 percent have a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 46 percent holding an unfavorable one.
Mandate indeed.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/politics/22cnd-poll.html?hp&ex=1101186000&en=34ccb5e9d2fe1ba2&ei=5094&partner=homepage



zimv20
Nov 22, 2004, 09:48 PM
this idea of hollywood reducing the country's moral values intrigues me. isn't hollywood simply making what people want?

those upset by it are free to make their own movies and tv shows, write their own books, etc. And many do. and many sell. i guess it's having the ability to shut down others' preferences that they're actually missing...

blackfox
Nov 22, 2004, 09:55 PM
this idea of hollywood reducing the country's moral values intrigues me. isn't hollywood simply making what people want?

those upset by it are free to make their own movies and tv shows, write their own books, etc. And many do. and many sell. i guess it's having the ability to shut down others' preferences that they're actually missing...

As I noted in another recent thread, what is more intriguing is who is to blame for Hollywood/Media poor taste/excess? It is actually Conservatives and/or their backers.

While it is true that many Actors are Liberal and Vocal, they merely star in these vehicles, not create them. This distinction seems to have been lost for obvious reasons. This is analgous to the (erroneous) popular perception that a Network Anchor's political leaning is indicative of the position of the Network itself.

As for giving people what they want, I am not convinced. It seems more like producers of given material marketing what they want in such a way that makes it seem like the public wanted it all along, thereby diffusing accountability.

IJ Reilly
Nov 22, 2004, 11:19 PM
I think an interesting study would be to compare what people say they believe and how they actually behave, in terms of their consumption of entertainment and their professed values. I'd be willing to bet the correlation is weak at best. I'm no fan of the movie, music or TV industries, but blaming them for moral corruption in the society at large is a form of externalization, IMO. It's a fact of human nature that we want to blame others for our own shortcomings, and expect others to change their ways before we change ours.

As for the Bush "mandate," it was never more than smoke and mirrors anyway. Nothing in this survey surprises me.

Ugg
Nov 23, 2004, 12:51 AM
this idea of hollywood reducing the country's moral values intrigues me. isn't hollywood simply making what people want?

those upset by it are free to make their own movies and tv shows, write their own books, etc. And many do. and many sell. i guess it's having the ability to shut down others' preferences that they're actually missing...

Therein lies the rub. I recently read, sorry, no link, that the viewing habits of the most liberal vs the most conservative tv markets of the country are virtually the same. I'd bet you a few bucks that if Hollywood turned all fundamentalist Christian and put women in concealing skirts in the kitchen and men only in their garages or offices and cut out all the sex and violence, Hollywood would disappear within a year.

I think we need to rename the far right and call them fundamentally hypocritical what with their closet tv viewing habits and divorce rates higher than the most liberal areas of the country.

One thing that still astounds me about this country is its fascination with the tv. I do rent movies but haven't watched tv with any regularity for about 10 years. Whenever I'm around one I inevitably sit around like a zombie with my mouth open endlessly clicking through the channels hoping beyond hope to find something worth watching. Anyway, if it's really that bad, why don't they just turn the stupid thing off and find something more "christian" to do?

What I would like to see is a study rating the obesity levels of the right vs the left. :D

Xtremehkr
Nov 23, 2004, 02:17 AM
Therein lies the rub. I recently read, sorry, no link, that the viewing habits of the most liberal vs the most conservative tv markets of the country are virtually the same. I'd bet you a few bucks that if Hollywood turned all fundamentalist Christian and put women in concealing skirts in the kitchen and men only in their garages or offices and cut out all the sex and violence, Hollywood would disappear within a year.

I think we need to rename the far right and call them fundamentally hypocritical what with their closet tv viewing habits and divorce rates higher than the most liberal areas of the country.

One thing that still astounds me about this country is its fascination with the tv. I do rent movies but haven't watched tv with any regularity for about 10 years. Whenever I'm around one I inevitably sit around like a zombie with my mouth open endlessly clicking through the channels hoping beyond hope to find something worth watching. Anyway, if it's really that bad, why don't they just turn the stupid thing off and find something more "christian" to do?

What I would like to see is a study rating the obesity levels of the right vs the left. :D

The real issues that current conservative voters care about are rarely spoken of, they have become really good at disguising their agenda over the past couple of decades. I am not going to get into it too deeply without some articles to support my position. But let's just say that there is a reason why the GOP goes out of its way to use minorities in prominent roles. In reality though, anyone can follow an order.

pseudobrit
Nov 23, 2004, 08:20 AM
this idea of hollywood reducing the country's moral values intrigues me. isn't hollywood simply making what people want?

those upset by it are free to make their own movies and tv shows, write their own books, etc. And many do. and many sell. i guess it's having the ability to shut down others' preferences that they're actually missing...

I'm glad you brought this up.

Many people complain, loudly and in no uncertain terms, that actors and musicians and such should just shut up and keep their political opinions to themselves, that they don't want to hear what they have to say and that they should stick to acting/singing/performing whatever.

I've yet to hear anyone say that the conservative, pro-Bush Nashville musicians should do likewise. And they're just as, if not more, vocal than any other group.

Hypocrisy at its peak.

Thomas Veil
Nov 23, 2004, 08:20 AM
While everyone else seems to be focusing in on the paragraphs that deal with the media, allow me to address the post in toto.

The article appears to be a rather broad summary of many of the things we've heard since the election, and no matter which way I read it, I find some very troubling things. Some parts suggest that what we fear is true: the U.S. is becoming some kind of de facto theocracy where "moral values" matter more than common sense; where people will actually vote against their own interests because their religious convictions tell them to. Other parts make it appear that the electorate doesn't know what the hell it wants, voting for candidates that are against the ideas that the public professes to be for.

It is a mass of contradictions, and it is to make your head spin. It's hard to read that article and not come to the conclusion that a large segment of the voting public is either ambivalent, confused, gullible, or just outright stupid.

(And if that's "elitism", so be it.)

IJ Reilly
Nov 23, 2004, 11:00 AM
Old joke:

Protestants don't recognize the authority of the pope. Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Baptists don't recognize each other in the liquor store on Sunday.

Xtremehkr
Nov 23, 2004, 12:05 PM
"Don't think about the Elephant"

Liberal organization(s) need to start working today on building outlets that promote reason, common sense and tolerance. To combat the voracity of the religious fervor that has been stoked by the GOP.

Through Unions, labor organizations, left leaning chruchs and even through making an effort to take back college campuses and getting students involved again. It's getting repetitive I know, but just obsessing over what Bush is going to do in the next 4 years isn't going to help.

There have been some excellent blogs and other websites started, I wonder if there is an efficient way to get all of these different sites tied together so that they become known to a wider range of people who can draw accurate information from them. Or receive the same sort of information.

Kinda like how NewsMax and the Limbaugh Letter spam people with easily repeatable propaganda that shows up over and over in every political thread on the internet.