The years of George W. Bush's sour misrule have been disastrous for many of his staunchest supporters. The Heartland folk have seen their jobs taken, liberties curtailed, communities withered, states bankrupted, prices hiked, schools neglected, pensions gutted, air poisoned, water tainted, and their children killed and maimed in an unjust war for profit that's made the world more dangerous. Yet still they swear allegiance to a leader whose every action -- as opposed to the honeyed hokum of his speeches -- expresses nothing but vicious contempt for those he governs.
It is, by any measure, an extraordinary situation. How can we account for it? One answer -- offered up ad nauseam by Bush's cadre of media toadies -- is that the rock-ribbed American yeomanry placed their dedication to "moral values" above crass economic interests. This display of transcendent idealism has excited admiration even among the defeated Democrats, whose "centrist" apparatchiks and commentators openly long for some of that red-state moral mojo.
There's just one thing wrong with this ubiquitous piece of conventional wisdom: It's a steaming crock of Crawford cowflop. The truth is that the number of voters in 2004 citing "moral values" as their priority in selecting a candidate -- 22 percent -- actually declined by more than 13 percent from 2000, as Frank Rich, among others, reports. In fact, the "values" vote was down almost 20 percent from the 1996 campaign, which returned the notoriously amoral Bill Clinton to office with a bigger winning margin than the tiny mandate Bush managed to muster, by hook and crook, this year.
No wonder they prefer voluntary servitude -- and manufactured outrage, and Idiotspeak, and witless diversion -- to the true moral values of responsibility and dissent. It would cost too much -- in money, comfort and self-righteousness -- to stand against the system. And so the machine keeps grinding on, fed by slaughter, greed and guilt.
http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/12/03/120.html