The myth of the bigoted Christian redneck

[Zhukov]

The myth of the bigoted Christian redneck
Charles Krauthammer

November 12, 2004

WASHINGTON -- In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: ``Angry White Men: Their votes turned the tide for the GOP.''

Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election, there were 53 Nexis mentions of angry white men in the media. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

In the post-election analyses, the liberal elite, led by the holy trinity of The New York Times -- Krugman, Friedman, and Dowd -- just about lost its mind denouncing the return of medieval primitivism. As usual, Maureen Dowd achieved the highest level of hysteria, cursing the Republicans for pandering to ``isolationism, nativism, chauvinism, puritanism and religious fanaticism'' in their unfailing drive to ``summon our nasty devils.''

Whence comes this fable? With President Bush increasing his share of the vote among Hispanics, Jews, women (especially married women), Catholics, seniors and even African-Americans, on what does this victory-of-the-homophobic-evangelical rest?

Its origins lie in a single question in the Election Day exit poll. The urban myth grew around the fact that ``moral values'' ranked highest in the answer to Question J: ``Which ONE issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?''

It is a thin reed upon which to base a General Theory of the '04 Election. In fact, it is no reed at all. The way the question was set up, moral values was sure to be ranked disproportionately high. Why? Because it was a multiple-choice question and moral values cover a group of issues, while all the other choices were individual issues. Chop up the alternatives finely enough, and moral values is sure to get a bare plurality over the others.

Look at the choices:
-- Education, 4 percent
-- Taxes, 5 percent
-- Health Care, 8 percent
-- Iraq, 15 percent
-- Terrorism, 19 percent
-- Economy and Jobs, 20 percent
-- Moral Values, 22 percent

"Moral values'' encompasses abortion, gay marriage, Hollywood's influence, the general coarsening of the culture, and, for some, the morality of pre-emptive war. The way to logically pit this class of issues against the others would be to pit it against other classes: ``war issues'' or ``foreign policy issues'' (Iraq plus terrorism) and ``economic issues'' (jobs, taxes, health care, etc).

If you pit group against group, moral values comes in dead last: war issues at 34 percent, economic issues variously described at 33 percent, and moral values at 22 percent -- i.e., they are at least a third less salient than the others.

And we know that this is the real ranking. After all, the exit poll is just a single poll. We had dozens of polls in the run-up to the election that showed that the chief concerns were the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the economy.

Ah, yes. But the fallback is then to attribute Bush's victory to the gay marriage referendums that pushed Bush over the top, particularly in Ohio.

This is more nonsense. George Bush increased his vote in 2004 over 2000 by an average of 3.1 percent nationwide. In Ohio the increase was 1 percent -- less than a third of the national average. In the 11 states in which the gay marriage referendums were held, Bush increased his vote by less than he did in the 39 states that did not have the referendum. The great anti-gay surge was pure fiction.

This does not deter the myth of the Bigoted Christian Redneck from dominating the thinking of liberals, and from infecting the blue-state media. They need their moral superiority like oxygen, and cannot have it cut off by mere facts. And so once again they angrily claim the moral high ground, while standing in the ruins of yet another humiliating electoral defeat.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041112.shtml

 

[Bonnie]

Great article!!!!!!!!!!! Krauthammer is brilliant

 

[Deornwulf]

I see I am not the only one who regularly reads at Townhall.com!

 

[Bonnie]

I see I am not the only one who regularly reads at Townhall.com!

Your in good company here

 

[nakedemperor]

The economy and jobs encompasses the stock market, oil prices, shipping jobs overseas, minimum wage, etc. etc. Terrorism encompasses homeland security, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc. For this reason I don't think the argument that "values trumped other issues because its a multiple-choice question" doesn't exactly hold water. Many of those "issues" were expansive and covered multiple sub-issues.

"Moral values" definitely had a lot to do with the president's re-election. And while I'm not sure about "bigoted Christian redneck", I'd say that "rural Christians who dont believe in abortion or gay marriage" is not "myth" and was a significant factor.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The economy and jobs encompasses the stock market, oil prices, shipping jobs overseas, minimum wage, etc. etc. Terrorism encompasses homeland security, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc. For this reason I don't think the argument that "values trumped other issues because its a multiple-choice question" doesn't exactly hold water. Many of those "issues" were expansive and covered multiple sub-issues.

"Moral values" definitely had a lot to do with the president's re-election. And while I'm not sure about "bigoted Christian redneck", I'd say that "rural Christians who dont believe in abortion or gay marriage" is not "myth" and was a significant factor.

To an extent, nudist, but moral values is the mega issue which is infused throughout all others. There are moral components to nearly all policy discussions, on every issue (ie "A moral society doesn't deny free health care", "a moral society doesn't allow black people to attend undesegregated schools "). What pisses off you libs is you can tolerate no other moral righteousness and indignation than your own.

 

[manu1959]

To an extent, nudist, but moral values is the mega issue which is infused throughout all others. There are moral components to nearly all policy discussions, on every issue (ie "A moral society doesn't deny free health care", "a moral society doesn't allow black people to attend undesegregated schools "). What pisses off you libs is you can tolerate no other moral righteousness and indignation than your own.

all good decision making is based on sound moral and ethical values.....a majority of americans felt that mr bush foundation was better than mr kerry's

 

[Bonnie]

To an extent, nudist, but moral values is the mega issue which is infused throughout all others. There are moral components to nearly all policy discussions, on every issue (ie "A moral society doesn't deny free health care", "a moral society doesn't allow black people to attend undesegregated schools "). What pisses off you libs is you can tolerate no other moral righteousness and indignation than your own.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bonnie]

all good decision making is based on sound moral and ethical values.....a majority of americans felt that mr bush foundation was better than mr kerry's

Im not sure Kerry had any foundation.........One of those puts finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows cuz he just wants to WIN!!!!!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not sure Kerry had any foundation.........One of those puts finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows cuz he just wants to WIN!!!!!!!

He never put his figure up in the air to see which way the wind blows. He puts his figure up in the air whenever Theresa gets so mad at him that she shoves a pole up his butt, where his finger is otherwise. Not surprisingly it happens alot.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

"Moral values" definitely had a lot to do with the president's re-election. And while I'm not sure about "bigoted Christian redneck", I'd say that "rural Christians who dont believe in abortion or gay marriage" is not "myth" and was a significant factor.

You're not SURE about "bigoted Christian redneck"?? What do you mean by that? You aren't sure about calling a group of people a label that sounds derrogatory? Then you rephrase yourself about what you REALLY think and how you REALLY feel with a nicer-sounding name ("rural Christians who dont believe in abortion or gay marriage"), so it doesn't sound as bad as what you want to say, even though the latter is nearly the same thing, just using different words. Here is a great example of 'newspeak', if you catch my drift... Liberals don't like anyone else to label, or stereotype people, but you do it every day.

 

[theim]

 

[nakedemperor]

You're not SURE about "bigoted Christian redneck"?? What do you mean by that? You aren't sure about calling a group of people a label that sounds derrogatory? Then you rephrase yourself about what you REALLY think and how you REALLY feel with a nicer-sounding name ("rural Christians who dont believe in abortion or gay marriage"), so it doesn't sound as bad as what you want to say, even though the latter is nearly the same thing, just using different words. Here is a great example of 'newspeak', if you catch my drift... Liberals don't like anyone else to label, or stereotype people, but you do it every day.

Can you not see the distinction between "bigoted" and "one who simply doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage"? One is derogatory, and the other is stating facts. I'm not conflating or restating a term, which you're so quick to believe I am. I'm not smoothing-over my stereotyping, I'm providing a legitimate insight as opposed to a false and derogatory one.

Can you see the distinction between "redneck" and "rural"? One is derogatory and one means "living in rural areas". Again, if you choose to believe I'm not saying what I actually mean that's your own damn fault.

"It doesn't sound as bad as what I want to say". No, actually I'm saying two completely different things.

And as to the "I'm not sure about this"; fine, maybe the sarcastic undertones qualified by my own definition wasn't strong enough. I'm positively sure that "bigoted Christian redneck" is not a fair or legitimate qualification.

I'm not stereotyping, but you sure are. You're lumping me in with the stereoptypical liberal in your mind's eye; while that ain't me, Fuzzykitten.

 

[dilloduck]

Can you not see the distinction between "bigoted" and "one who simply doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage"? One is derogatory, and the other is stating facts. I'm not conflating or restating a term, which you're so quick to believe I am. I'm not smoothing-over my stereotyping, I'm providing a legitimate insight as opposed to a false and derogatory one.

Can you see the distinction between "redneck" and "rural"? One is derogatory and one means "living in rural areas". Again, if you choose to believe I'm not saying what I actually mean that's your own damn fault.

"It doesn't sound as bad as what I want to say". No, actually I'm saying two completely different things.

And as to the "I'm not sure about this"; fine, maybe the sarcastic undertones qualified by my own definition wasn't strong enough. I'm positively sure that "bigoted Christian redneck" is not a fair or legitimate qualification.

I'm not stereotyping, but you sure are. You're lumping me in with the stereoptypical liberal in your mind's eye; while that ain't me, Fuzzykitten.

Could be because you never declare yourself or propose alternatives to the currently popular administration.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Can you not see the distinction between "bigoted" and "one who simply doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage"? One is derogatory, and the other is stating facts. I'm not conflating or restating a term, which you're so quick to believe I am. I'm not smoothing-over my stereotyping, I'm providing a legitimate insight as opposed to a false and derogatory one.

Can you see the distinction between "redneck" and "rural"? One is derogatory and one means "living in rural areas". Again, if you choose to believe I'm not saying what I actually mean that's your own damn fault.

"It doesn't sound as bad as what I want to say". No, actually I'm saying two completely different things.

And as to the "I'm not sure about this"; fine, maybe the sarcastic undertones qualified by my own definition wasn't strong enough. I'm positively sure that "bigoted Christian redneck" is not a fair or legitimate qualification.

:blah2: :blah2: Keep talking...maybe one day you will make sense.

You are still LABELING people. Yes, what you posted MAY BE TRUE as far as facts go, but you are still labeling them. All you did was find a NICER label.

I'm not stereotyping, but you sure are. You're lumping me in with the stereoptypical liberal in your mind's eye; while that ain't me, Fuzzykitten.

Well then, what about your beliefs is NOT of the stereotypical looney-liberal, and HOW do they differ from the aforementioned?

 

[nakedemperor]

:
You are still LABELING people. Yes, what you posted MAY BE TRUE as far as facts go, but you are still labeling them. All you did was find a NICER label.

Oh wow. I labeled Christians as Christians, rural-living people as rural-living people, and people who dont believe in gay marriage as...people who don't believe in gay marriage. You're criticizing me for labeling. If I label you as a "person" am I still guilty? Yeah, cut me a slice of that.

:Well then, what about your beliefs is NOT of the stereotypical looney-liberal, and HOW do they differ from the aforementioned?

Well, LIKE I SAID, I don't believe that rural Americans "red-necks" and I don't believe that people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage are "bigoted". As far as I can tell, you probably believe the typical looney liberal does think those things, and I do not... see the difference? I'd spell it out for you clearer but...I can't.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041112.shtml

Krauthammer says the "Angry White Man" has become the "Bigoted Christian Redneck."

I think it has gone beyond that. I think the new term is "NeoCon Christofascist" which seems to express the liberals real feelings about the right spectrum of voters that put Bush into office.

Liberals must have denigrating labels to use in their denigrating emotional attacks.

 

[Bonnie]

Krauthammer says the "Angry White Man" has become the "Bigoted Christian Redneck."

I think it has gone beyond that. I think the new term is "NeoCon Christofascist" which seems to express the liberals real feelings about the right spectrum of voters that put Bush into office.

Liberals must have denigrating labels to use in their denigrating emotional attacks.

Of course because denograting a group of people is one of the most effective ways of shaming them into submission.
Fortunately people will only stand for that for so long then they get angry and vote into office people that don't do that ..

 

[5stringJeff]

Krauthammer says the "Angry White Man" has become the "Bigoted Christian Redneck."

I think it has gone beyond that. I think the new term is "NeoCon Christofascist" which seems to express the liberals real feelings about the right spectrum of voters that put Bush into office.

Liberals must have denigrating labels to use in their denigrating emotional attacks.

Will "NeoCon Christofascist" fit underneath my screen name?

 

[no1tovote4]

Can you not see the distinction between "bigoted" and "one who simply doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage"? One is derogatory, and the other is stating facts. I'm not conflating or restating a term, which you're so quick to believe I am. I'm not smoothing-over my stereotyping, I'm providing a legitimate insight as opposed to a false and derogatory one.

This would be fine if it ended there.

Can you see the distinction between "redneck" and "rural"? One is derogatory and one means "living in rural areas". Again, if you choose to believe I'm not saying what I actually mean that's your own damn fault.

However here you stereotype rural people as uber-christians that voted against gay marriage. I live in a rural area and very clearly have pointed out to people on this site that I think gay marriage not only should be allowed but is not the prerogative of the government other than allowing them to be taxed more like all other married couples. By lumping all rural voters as the anti-gay vote you have simplified it to a point that is simply surreal. I know more african-americans that are against gay marriage and most of them voted for Kerry and live in the city. Most of the rural voters are more libertarian than you want to believe (not liberal but libertarian) and the people in my area simply didn't vote because of that issue.

"It doesn't sound as bad as what I want to say". No, actually I'm saying two completely different things.

True.
And as to the "I'm not sure about this"; fine, maybe the sarcastic undertones qualified by my own definition wasn't strong enough. I'm positively sure that "bigoted Christian redneck" is not a fair or legitimate qualification.

I'm not stereotyping, but you sure are. You're lumping me in with the stereoptypical liberal in your mind's eye; while that ain't me, Fuzzykitten.

I am not objecting to any derogatory statement here, I am saying that I think you are wrong in your assessment entirely and the rural voter was not more likely to vote this way than the more Urban voter. I would firmly place this type of thing in the Suburban rather than the rural voting.