The Appeal to "Value Voters"

[Solly Mack]

I used to think I had values until the rise of the appeal to "value voters."

Now I know that only certain ideas and beliefs are considered "values."

I put the words in quotation marks for a reason. However, in the media it's almost never framed in quotation marks. Why?

Are these so-called "value voters" they only people with values?

Are these so-called "value voters" the only people with values that matter?

When someone makes the statement that they are appealing to the "value voters", isn't the implication that other voters don't have values? Because when people say "value voters" don't they mean a certain group of voters and not all voters?

So by accepting the term and using the term without qualification, isn't the idea then expressed that these voters are the ones with values? So what does that say about the rest of voters?

Don't we all have values?

Why can't we call the so-called "value voters" what they really are?

People who wish to maintain a certain status quo simply because they benefit the most from that status quo. People who want to oppress others. People who want the world to think like they do so they can feel comfortable in their intolerance.

People who want their religion to be "the" religion.
People who want their religious views to be imposed on everyone.
People who think there are no values except their values.
People who refuse to accept others.
People who refuse to see people as people, unless those people embrace their thinking.
People who live in fear of other people.

[turbo_satan]

1. I don't think you'll ever sway certain "Value Voters"

Some of my in-laws are very religious Catholics and they are fairly politically aware. They know what BushCo is all about and they despise Bush, his cohorts, and their policies. None the less, my in-laws cast their votes based on a single issue: abortion. We have argued about this many, many times over the years -- they are compelled to vote for whichever candidate is pro-life, no matter how awful that candidate may be. It seems absurd to me and I'll never understand it, but there it is. The candidate could be a genocidal maniac, a war-monger, a hater of the poor, a mental defective, or even an apostate who runs afoul of every other stricture of Catholic dogma; as long as the candidate has expressed a commitment to the pro-life cause, he/she gets their vote.

Kinda makes family gatherings a drag...

[Solly Mack]

3. I don't think they can be swayed either

which is why I don't see the logic in appealing to them or feeding their egos and self-righteousness by calling them voters with values.

I say the term "value voters" with contempt and scorn - the people that make up that inappropriately labeled group see it as a badge of honor. They have values - and you don't.

[turbo_satan]

5. But these people aren't quite that simple to nail down...

They realize that the GOPers are a bunch of filthy hypocrites who are pandering to the self-righteous and that GOP policy is anathema to one of the fundamental tenets of Catholic doctrine: caring for the poor and disenfranchised. My in-laws understand liberation theology, they have a finely honed sense of social justice, they realize that Bush and his gang are evil SOBs, and they could rightly be considered progressives in their everyday beliefs and deeds. There's just one problem: they HAVE to vote for pro-life candidates regardless of the candidates' positions on all other issues. It just so happens that the pro-lifers in the political arena have, for some reason, aligned themselves with the corporatocracy. How the pro-death GOP and pro-life became commensurate I'll never understand, but there you have it...

[Solly Mack]

6. but when they do vote that way, they vote for those against everything else

they believe in...and well, doesn't that sorta negate everything they believe in? and doesn't that feed the very forces they are against?

I'm sure your in-laws are good people...so I'm not attacking them. Just asking. Trying to understand.

[turbo_satan]

7. Believe me, they drive me crazy...

Yes, they routinely vote for those against everything else they believe in. And they know this. Yet, they are compelled to vote for these sickos. They know that Katherine Harris is an awful person, a corrupt politician, an incompetent, and that she did awful things that put Bush in office. And yet, they must and will vote for her because she professes to be a pro-lifer.

This is the inherent problem with being an absolutist. You can even frame the question in the simplest of terms: "If the candidate were the worst person in the world who had the worst possible positions on every other issue that matters to you BUT they were pro life, would you vote for them?" The answer, sadly, is yes.

[Solly Mack]

8. (((((turbo-satan)))))

Hang in there!!!

All we can do is love our family - even as they're driving us crazy.

[turbo_satan]

9. Considering they vote in Florida...

... and there are about eight of them, and Bush "won" by 537 votes in 2000, I hold them more than 1% responsible for the mess we're in.

[Solly Mack]

10. Oh damn...you've done some thinking about this..if you got it

down to the percentages :)

((((more hugs))))

I have a relative I look at the same way.

My father-in-law to be exact.

[readmoreoften]

2. Valuevoter--it's like being a value shopper. Only you're also an asshat. /nt

[Solly Mack]

4. LOL!