November 6, 2004
Religion and the 2004 Election
By Alan Abramowitz
There has been considerable speculation since last Tuesday that President Bush's victory in the presidential election was largely due to improved turnout and support for the president among strongly religious voters. This speculation has been reinforced by the finding in the national exit polls that 22 percent of voters cited "moral values" as the most important issue in the election and the adoption by overwhelming margins of constitutional amendments banning gay marriage in 11 states. But the evidence from the 2000 and 2004 national exit polls does not support this theory. First, there was almost no difference in reported frequency of church attendance between the voters in 2000 and the voters in 2004. Among voters in the 2000 election, 14 percent reported attending church services more than weekly, 28 percent reported attending every week, 14 percent reported attending a few times a month, 28 percent reported attending a few times a year, and 14 percent reported never attending services. Among voters in the 2004 election, 16 percent reported attending services more than weekly, 26 percent reported attending every week, 14 percent reported attending a few times a month, 28 percent reported attending a few times a year, and 15 percent reported never attending services. While the percentage attending more than weekly rose by 2 points, the percentage attending every week dropped by 2 points and the percentage never attending rose by 1 point.
More importantly, between 2000 and 2004, President Bush's largest gains occurred among less religious voters, not among more religious voters. Among those attending services more than weekly and those attending every week, support for Bush rose by 1 percent, from 63 percent in 2000 to 64 percent in 2004. However, among those attending services a few times a month, support for Bush rose by 4 points, from 46 percent to 50 percent, among those attending only a few times a year, support for Bush rose by 3 points, from 42 percent to 45 percent, and among those never attending services, support for Bush rose by 4 points, from 32 percent to 36 percent.
Bottom line: the President made gains across the board among voters, regardless of their degree of religious commitment but he made his largest gains among less religious voters.
Posted by ms at November 6, 2004 03:31 PMYuval:
Maybe, but it's also possible that it was all of the above(tm). In Ohio, the dudes kissing ban clearly carried the day, barely, for example. But elsewhere, war brought out a lot of SUV drivers, and those not-family-values values seem to have swung moderate women and Latinos away - the vaguely "populist" stuff like wages, opportunity, child care, etc. If Penn is right, these last two groups made the election. But again, it may be all of the above.
I say it's a false choice to pick one. Tera, kissin' dudes, policies targeted to families. We saw increased GOP turnout in each area.
Posted by Pacific John at November 6, 2004 03:35 PMYuval:
Maybe, but it's also possible that it was all of the above(tm). In Ohio, the dudes kissing ban clearly carried the day, barely, for example. But elsewhere, war brought out a lot of SUV drivers, and those not-family-values values seem to have swung moderate women and Latinos away - the vaguely "populist" stuff like wages, opportunity, child care, etc. If Penn is right, these last two groups made the election. But again, it may be all of the above.
I say it's a false choice to pick one. Tera, kissin' dudes, policies targeted to families. We saw increased GOP turnout in each area.
Posted by Pacific John at November 6, 2004 03:37 PM(sorry, server belch)
Posted by Pacific John at November 6, 2004 03:40 PMI have no doubt that terrorism played some role, my main point is that gay marriage was the key issue in putting Bush over the top. You can have all the reassuring polling data you want, but when your family and in-laws are telling you that the issue is being pounded every Sunday at church, as the post I linked to points out, it's simply impossible to avoid the fact that this did translate into more votes for Bush.
Posted by rayman at November 6, 2004 03:51 PMThe economic populism was there, but not in the foreground. A simple signature issue like raising the minimum wage (the sort of thing Bush could never adequately coopt) would have helped.
Posted by Rich at November 6, 2004 03:53 PMYes, it is the values. This is not to say that had Kerry perfectly executed a traditional liberal campaign the results might not have been reversed; only that perfect campaigns don't happen and that the Left needs to develop the deep values well the right enjoys to allow for mis-whatevers. In this respect, the Left needs to re-examine the values it, implicitly or explicitly, does espouse as well as formulate new ones. For example, many of the Left's programatic solutions to social ills are reflexively based on group victimology. This notion is hugely resented by the many Americans who highly value individual responsibility and self-sufficiency. It's not that they do not want to recognize and treat victims, just that they feel it is far better done locally. That is why many secular folks, even atheists like me, would support a regulated network of faith-based social programs.
Posted by Howardskid at November 6, 2004 04:01 PMFrankly, I'm shocked that no Democrat has managed to merge "economic populism" and completely inappropriate appeals to Christianity that come from the left.
Jesus, let's not forget, said that the first thing a guy needs to do to follow God is to give away his stuff. Said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven. A man who said that people should keep their prayer between themselves and God, rather than flaunt it.
You don't have to go completely Liberation Theological to make the point that the answer to "What Would Jesus Do™" is "he'd stop supporting a plutocratic dickhead!"
Posted by Matt Davis at November 6, 2004 04:16 PMHas anybody wondered about the timing of the Mayor of San Francisco on bringing gay marriage to the forefront of political debate. In several debates at the time I argued that his timing was really suspect and wondered what his payoff was and from whom. Anybody who thinks that this was not one of the key issues that gave us Bush for another 4 hasn't been paying attention. Franks may be trying to change his story now but in his book it was quite clear that the "Culural Issues" included "Gay Marriage and or unions were part of the program.
I don't feel that the Democratic party can find a way to get the religious right into the fold. They will look at any attempt as phony. I'm beginning to believe that it might be time for a new third party, it will be tough for the democrats to win for awhile might just as well start over.
Posted by The Grey Tiger at November 6, 2004 04:21 PMWhat's with this post and the comments here? Values was the key factor?
You mean, not counting voter suppression, election fraud and touch screen voting, and the relentless war against Kerry in every corner of the corporate media from the NY Times to CNN and Fox, relentlessly repeating the swift boat smears?
Oh yeah, you don't count any of that, then sure, values it is.
The left, at least on this blog, is being played like a violin.
Posted by Alan S at November 6, 2004 04:35 PMMark Schmitt raised a related question on his blog: "why it is that the current flourishing of religious faith has, for the first time ever, virtually no element of social justice?"
I would suggest that the “current flourishing” has lacked a social justice element because it has been largely driven by individuals---like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson---who have strongly identified with the Republican Party’s economic agenda. In other words, Christianity---in the hands of Republicans---has developed a “moral focus” that selectively ignores the teachings of Jesus that they find...well, a bit unwelcome.
After all, Jesus urged his followers to not concern themselves with their wealth (“...sell all you have...”) and to be wimps when confronting bullies. Republicans find themselves not wanting to follow such teachings because they sense that obeying them could end up threatening their privileged positions in society. So they've tended to focus attention on moral “issues” that do not threaten their economic fortunes in any way, like abortion and homosexuality. Republican strategists who have felt some identification with Christianity have simply turned this intuitively sensed "interest" into a weapon that they've been able to use in the political arena to advance their economic agenda.
The time has come for Democrats to put Republican Christians on the defensive. The first thing we need to do is accuse them of wrongly suggesting that Jesus would be a Republican if he were a United States citizen today, instead of a Democrat. It is easy to point to specific teachings by Jesus that would clearly define him as a bleeding-heart liberal. Indeed, most Republicans would be quick to describe him as "far to the left" of the majority of Democrats. Did he not teach his followers to give freely of their possessions to others, and to respond to any attack by an enemy from another country with acts of loving kindness? Can there be any doubt that Arnold Schwarzenegger would call him a "Girly Man?"
When the arguments start, Democrats need to point out that it is only logical for us to conclude that Jesus told us which moral issues were the most important to him by the amount of time he spent commenting on them. Which moral issues did he emphasize the most? There is little doubt that he thought it was especially important for his followers to be willing to deny themselves materially if that was what was required in order to obtain the benefit others. He repeated this theme more than once.
We might then want to point out that neither abortion nor homosexuality were addressed by Jesus. Does that omission mean that neither of those practices is wrong? Of course not. But it does strongly suggest that even if it seems obvious to us that Jesus thought homosexuality and abortion were sinful practices, it should also be obvious to us that he didn’t perceive them to be as alarming as the other imperfections he saw within human souls.
If he did think that abortion and homosexuality were more serious “crimes” than failing to love your enemy, then why did he not mention them when he had the chance?
If one examines closely the words that were attributed to Jesus by the authors of the Gospels, there is no evidence that he believed abortion and homosexuality were more offensive than the failure of a rich man to deny himself for the benefit of others. Democrats are clearly justified in believing that they have a stronger claim to a true identification with Jesus than Republicans do.
Doing this would immediately put Republican Christians on the defensive. Whenever they try to defend themselves from the charge of hypocrisy, all Democrats need to do is ask them why it is that they can’t follow Jesus’ teaching re: social justice? Why is it that they are concerning themselves with the motes they see in the eyes of others when they have beams in their own?
Is it because they like to willfully ignore Jesus’ teaching? We need to start publicly pressuring Republican Christians to agree with us that Jesus’ specific teachings on moral issues should be taken more seriously than any advice on other moral topics that followers or predecessors might have expressed at other times.
If we do this in good faith, we will be able to bleed away some of the support that Republican Christians have enjoyed because we will have made it safe for many devout followers to see that one can be a good Christian and also a Good Democrat at the same time. After all, Jesus was just such a man.
Posted by James J. Kroeger at November 6, 2004 04:36 PMAll this talk about memes and messages and values is completely beside the point. Why? Because we don't control the media, and THEY DO.
It doesn't matter what nuanced words we use, when they go through the media filter, they will be twisted against us.
So forget about all this what's the right message stuff. It might become relevant once the media isn't controlled by the right wing noise machine. But until then, it is beside the point.
As long as they control the air waves, we will not be able to get out message out. So why worry about the fine points of our message?
The only time Kerry was able to get his message out unfiltered was during the debates--and his poll ratings soared. So what was wrong with his message? Nothing.
What was wrong was that the media war against him went on nonstop after the debates.
What we have to do is take action against the media. How do we do that? I don't know, but figuring that out is much more important than playing with memes.
Certainly, I agree that values is more important than this:
Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
by Thom Hartmann
When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.
See the whole thing here: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm
Posted by Alan S at November 6, 2004 04:51 PMAll the argument over who did what to garner a few percentage points becomes meaningless in the light of the fact that the election was stolen,
again.
Why would this surprise anyone?
The "flukes" and "blips" are getting hard to ignore, the push back will be framed as tinfoil hattery, but in every case that I have seen the skew is towards Bushco.
Guys, I think we can discuss both the voting irregularities/fraud and the impact of gay marriage on the election--they're not mutually exclusive.
Posted by rayman at November 6, 2004 05:05 PMAlan S.,
Thanks for that link. My wife is forwarding it to the national and Florida GOTV coordinators she has been working with.
If it is places with optical scan a recount would presumably reverse these anomalies. What is needed to get a recount in Florida? Anyone know?
Posted by Daniel Maskit at November 6, 2004 05:13 PMAMEN James
I've begun to use similar arguments in my own church. Lib Dems may not realize that they have a lot of religious supporters. Many of us are in churches that have a lot of gay marriage/abortion Bush supporters. Fundie support for these issues has a strong Old Testament flavor. Liberal Christians need to lead the fight by using the teachings of Jesus as James suggested.
The "moral values" the Evangelical "Christians" are pushing don't have anything to do with the words of Christ but come entirely from the the Abrahamic teachings in the old testiment, the same teachings the Taliban use. The old testiment is a how too book for being a successful tribe in the middle eastern deserts 2500 years ago, a code of law for another time and another place. But as Faulkner said: "In the South, the past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
Posted by Ron In Portland at November 6, 2004 05:49 PMYuval,
I respectfully disagree. There is only so much time and energy. And the values thing is a distraction. And the point that the corporate media will distort and corrupt any message we can come up with would indicate to me that trying to fine tune our message is a waste of energy.
An effective use of our energy would attack the real cause of the Bush "victory," not the fake cause of values which the media served up, bright and early Wednesday moring, everywhere you looked. Why fall for that?
Posted by Alan S at November 6, 2004 05:57 PMAnd note that the moral values issue, which got such play in the media, seemed to pop up from nowhere in the exit polls. I didn't see pollsters talking about that before the election. It was a brand new meme served up by Karl Rove to provide a nice explanation for the Kerry "loss" that focused on heartland American's and Kerry's inability to connect with them. How neat. How simple. How false, especially if Kerry won the actual vote.
Why wasn't there a swift-boats item on the exit poll. Wouldn't want to attribute Kerry's "defeat" to nasty smear tactics, now would we.
Posted by Alan S at November 6, 2004 06:02 PMDavid Maister
I donb't know. I think (hope) that Kerry is playing things very close to the vest. If it's true that the FBI is involved, then it may become very difficult to destroy evidence without facing obstruction of justice charges. More and more people are making a stink about this, but not a word from Kerry or the DNC that I've heard of. Is this a stealth strategy, or is there heart not in it? We'll see.
Lot's of posts on the fraud issue over at DailyKos.
Posted by Alan S at November 6, 2004 06:07 PMIn the last couple of days I've noticed that the conservative claque keeps hitting us latte liberals repeating ad nauseum that we are making fun of the conservative base in general and the Christian right in particular. These attacks have come from all over the Republican spectrum. Most recently, I heard them from both Alan Simpson and Andrew Sullivan. I can't help but think that this is the new Rovian message that is being let out of the bottle -- something to put the liberal side of the aisle down for and make us irrelevant as we desperately try to prove the unproveable that our criticism of right-wing religious fanaticism is not bullying but rather a genuine critique of the republican base. We definitely have a hard row to hoe in overcoming the right wing in the midterm elections in two years. We need to stake our position as a party of progressives clearly. We are a party which has not just some vague notion of moral values, but we are a party of social values, values that support the whole of society to enhance all the various bases-- the Christian right and gays, children and environmentalists, etc. Our agenda, as it were, is in support of the whole of humanity, not just one or two groups who think that their beliefs represent the highest form of morality at the expense of everyone else.
Posted by Amy at November 6, 2004 07:26 PMI think Tom Franks has it mostly right. The key is not just economic populism. Jobs, taxes, minimum wage but combining those with values. The religious community is disgusted by what they see on T.V. The viagra ads, the lifestyle portrayed, the Janet Jackson's all it will take is to place the blame where it belongs not on hollywood but on capitalism on the corporate world whose goal is only profit. Ironic isn't it how Fox News trumpets the morality of the Right and then puts on programs that are contrary to those same conservative values. It is my opinion that this is the linkage the left needs to make. Placing blame on the corporate world for the lack of values. The same corporate world that Bush offers as the solution to all our problems.
Posted by Norm Jenson at November 6, 2004 08:14 PMWhile the economic populist message was there, it was poorly expressd. Kerry/Edwards railed (correctly) against tax breaks for the rich. What they didn't do is make it specific -- that Bush wants to eliminate taxes on investment income like rent & dividends. IF you present it as such -- why should your landlord not pay income taxes while you do, why should Paris Hilton & her ilk not pay taxes because they live off of dividends rather than wages, people would figure out what the Bush plans mean.
The media sure as hell isn't going to inform the public, we need to make it concrete ourselves. I work with some Republicans who had absolutely no idea that the tax reform plans meant that while they would continue to pay taxes, their landlord & the trust fundies would get out of carrying their share. They can't defend that & respond by saying Im wrong, just making it up -- go figure.
Posted by LeislerNYC at November 6, 2004 08:49 PMAMEN brother Matt.
Posted by Judith at November 7, 2004 07:25 AMOn Yuval Rubinstein's single point regarding Tom Frank, I side with Norm Jensen when he says, "I think Tom [Frank] has it mostly right."
The irony. as it used to be pointed out with some regularity, is that most of the middle class owes its very existence and prosperity to Democratic liberalism. From Social Security in the early '30's to the G.I. Bill in the '40s, Medicare and Civil Rights in the '60s, expansion of Medicaid in the '70s, Title VII and federal aid to education in the '70's, and the Family Medical Leave Act in the early '90s, Democrats have consistently promoted -- and Republicans opposed -- every single federal program that enhances the quality of life and economic security of the middle class and working people.
Yet Republican rhetoric has managed to hoodwink a great many of the voters into identifying their aspirations with the Republican Party. It's enough to drive one to distraction to speak with someone, like an elderly relative-by-marriage I had until he died recently who was a low-wage working man all his life, entirely dependent on Social Security. Daily, he would excoriate "the liberals in Congress" while extolling the virtues of "conservatives" and "free enterprise." If he had had the misfortune to live under the kind of government he consistently voted for, the man would have died young after selling pencils in the street the last years of his life.
Hence, I think Frank has it exactly right:
To short-circuit the Republican appeals to blue-collar constituents, Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. They must dust off their own majoritarian militancy instead of suppressing it; sharpen the distinctions between the parties instead of minimizing them; emphasize the contradictions of culture-war populism instead of ignoring them; and speak forthrightly about who gains and who loses from conservative economic policy.Sadly, I think he's also right in this:
What is more likely, of course, is that Democratic officialdom will simply see this week's disaster as a reason to redouble their efforts to move to the right. They will give in on, say, Social Security privatization or income tax "reform" and will continue to dream their happy dreams about becoming the party of the enlightened corporate class. And they will be surprised all over again two or four years from now when the conservative populists of the Red America, poorer and angrier than ever, deal the "party of the people" yet another stunning blow.
Maybe it is time to try a third party. The Democrats in Congress are now at their lowest ebb since 1928.
1928!!!!
Posted by larre at November 7, 2004 07:47 AMJames, you may be on to something. Using Christ's own words is hard to combat. Being a liberal Christian, there is no defense against the teachings of Christ. When we are told to love our enemies, it means just that. Nothing more, period. The beauty of that statement is that Christ knew that to bring people together meant putting aside prejudices, misunderstanding and hatred. It is through the act of showing love that opens the door of possibilities. No where in the New Testament did Christ say "kill your enemies if they don't agree with you".
Posted by Judith at November 7, 2004 07:47 AMOn Yuval Rubinstein's single point regarding Tom Frank, I side with Norm Jensen when he says, "I think Tom [Frank] has it mostly right."
The irony. as it used to be pointed out with some regularity, is that most of the middle class owes its very existence and prosperity to Democratic liberalism. From Social Security in the early '30's to the G.I. Bill in the '40s, Medicare and Civil Rights in the '60s, expansion of Medicaid in the '70s, Title VII and federal aid to education in the '70's, and the Family Medical Leave Act in the early '90s, Democrats have consistently promoted -- and Republicans opposed -- every single federal program that enhances the quality of life and economic security of the middle class and working people.
Yet Republican rhetoric has managed to hoodwink a great many of the voters into identifying their aspirations with the Republican Party. It's enough to drive one to distraction to speak with someone, like an elderly relative-by-marriage I had until he died recently who was a low-wage working man all his life, entirely dependent on Social Security. Daily, he would excoriate "the liberals in Congress" while extolling the virtues of "conservatives" and "free enterprise." If he had had the misfortune to live under the kind of government he consistently voted for, the man would have died young after selling pencils in the street the last years of his life.
Hence, I think Frank has it exactly right:
To short-circuit the Republican appeals to blue-collar constituents, Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. They must dust off their own majoritarian militancy instead of suppressing it; sharpen the distinctions between the parties instead of minimizing them; emphasize the contradictions of culture-war populism instead of ignoring them; and speak forthrightly about who gains and who loses from conservative economic policy.Sadly, I think he's also right in this:
What is more likely, of course, is that Democratic officialdom will simply see this week's disaster as a reason to redouble their efforts to move to the right. They will give in on, say, Social Security privatization or income tax "reform" and will continue to dream their happy dreams about becoming the party of the enlightened corporate class. And they will be surprised all over again two or four years from now when the conservative populists of the Red America, poorer and angrier than ever, deal the "party of the people" yet another stunning blow.
Maybe it is time to try a third party. The Democrats in Congress are now at their lowest ebb since 1928.
1928!!!!
Posted by larre at November 7, 2004 07:47 AMI can't resist posting a comment from a Republican. Moral values was not "gay marriage" as you all seem to think. I was receiving tons of pro-moral-values/pro-Bush messages long before gay marriage came to the forefront in this election. And I didn't vote the way I did because of it. I don't care either way whether gays marry or not. How would that affect me? And as any good Christian knows, it is not our right to judge, it is God's.
So, the moral values that you were hearing about were far more applicable to the guy who sued to have "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegience (overturned due to a technicality last June), than they were to the guy who tried to OK gay marriage. That was the number one concern of all the Christians I know who voted Bush. They wanted a president who solidly supported their right to acknowledge God in all the places they are used to acknowledging God. They didn't want to lose any more of their rights - such as their right to pray in school. (Like that was successful, anyway. I bet there's more prayer during Final Exams in school than there is during church on Sunday.)
This is the deal, folks. At my very root of my soul, I should be a Democrat. But I don't believe in the one thing that Dems do and that fundamental issue is what makes me a Republican. I believe very firmly that each of us American citizens has the right to pull him- or herself up by the bootstraps...the right to achieve whatever can be achieved with as few limits placed by government as possible. Dems treat everyone as though they are puppydogs - as if they don't have the brains or the wherewithal to make something of themselves. Dems attempt to anesthetize the masses with a message of "vote for us and we'll take care of you and everyone will be equal." Equal, as in, not equal to the leaders of the Democratic party. Equal, as in, everyone gets to be a C student whether they bother to achieve or not. What A student wants to be a C student? In fact, even C students want to get better grades, better their lives. Its part of our very nature.
So face it. Since we are an exceptionally prosperous country, we are dealing with problems like obesity, not famine. You can't appeal to people who have too much and convince them that they have too little. It's something that they can't deny when they look in the mirror. I understand that there are more houses in this country that have TVs with multi-million dollar entertainment, than have telephones, or even running water. What a richness in lifestyle we have that people can actually make the choice of having entertainment over running water! In fact, knowing that they have a pretty good deal going - getting good lifestyle grades, they aren't going to be voting to become C students.
Good luck in 2008. I'd suggest someone other than Hilary. Oprah would be a shoe-in, if you could convince her to give up her TV show.
Posted by Get a clue at November 7, 2004 09:46 PM"I believe very firmly that each of us American citizens has the right to pull him- or herself up by the bootstraps...the right to achieve whatever can be achieved with as few limits placed by government as possible."
Dear GetaClue,
That's exactly why I voted Democratic.
I, too, would like to acknowledge my spiritual convictions...which is why I object to something like the Ten Commandments being installed as part of state government. Jesus created His Rules, not the Old Testament ones. Real Christians understand that.
I would like to be able to work hard and pay my share...which I can't do when my job is outsourced and the tax burden falls on me exclusively.
In fact, I'd like to have a job at all...which might be in jeopardy if women are considered to be better off staying at home.
And while I'd like to be able to take out my own appendix and do my own brain surgery, I think it's better to leave that to people who know more about it than I do...so I do need health care. If I'm healthy, I'm much better able to stand on my own.
This "independence" you speak of is an illusion. We are an interdependent web. Perhaps you'd like to take off to the woods with an axe and a bag of salt. Go ahead. But someone had to still make the axe, the bag, and gather the salt.
Posted by Pam at November 9, 2004 07:13 AMPam -
sorry - you failed on that one.
The irony is that, while you think you are voting for an interdependent society when you vote for social programs such as social security, medicare, a national health plan, etc., you are actually voting more $$ to be distributed OUT of the public treasury. This in turn causes the country to weaken fiscally and eventually results in an entire loss of democracy.
To truly vote for an interdependent society, you have to vote for fewer restrictions, fewer taxes, so that people have the ability to better provide more value to society and receive value in return. What appears to be a selfish vote is actually a vote for the health of our democracy - one in which all able people can succeed.
If we aren't growing and contributing, we are atrophying and consuming. The society that is built to foster growth is the one that will succeed. How can a company create more jobs if it doesn't have enough money to pay another employee because it owes that money in taxes? And how can a person who doesn't have a job afford to eat out and pay a waitress an extra tip for good service? And how can that waitress use that tip to purchase an American-made product if she's earned too few to afford anything but rent? And if fewer products are being purchased, then corporate profits go down and more people lose their jobs...
Didn't you guys get it - Reagan's trickle down economics worked - and Clinton took credit for them. They were slow, granted, because it's like turning a freighter with a tug boat. But why else would our recent recession start the last year of Clinton's presidency??? Check the numbers - March 2000 - that's when taxation finally overwhelmed the progress that Reagan put in place. And then it took 3 years to finally get back in a positive swing.
Did you even know that Clinton was responsible for the taxes on Social Security? Because of the way that the laws are written, a person with a small pension and a small amount of Social Security ends up paying more taxes than a young person with a house, a mortgage and a low-wage job. Imagine being faced with that issue if you were on a fixed income - no possibility of begging the boss for a raise in the future?
A vote for Bush was a vote for the pocketbook. Mark my words - if a Dem gets into office and implements the taxes Kerry was promoting, then the recession that hits in 2011 will make the one in 2000 look like a tiny little blip on the economic scale.
Posted by Get a clue at November 9, 2004 10:18 PM