George Will has a terrific column from last week about the incredibly annoying new catchphrase from the right - "values voters". He writes:
An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.
This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.
On Sunday a Los Angeles Times article on the possibility of a presidential run by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reported: "The Family Research Council, an influential evangelical activist group, has invited Gov. Bush to appear at a fall conference of 'values voters.' " On Monday the Wall Street Journal quoted a pastor who is president of a Texas-based organization, Vision America, that mobilizes conservative pastors: "Values voters see their vote as a sacred trust." The phrase "values voters," which has become ubiquitous, subtracts from social comity by suggesting that one group has cornered the market on moral seriousness.
Last Saturday, when John McCain delivered the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, he was said to be reaching out to values voters. Hillary Clinton, speaking recently at the annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce convention, scolded "kids," by which she evidently meant young adults, for thinking "work is a four-letter word." She was said to be courting values voters. If so, those voters must value slapdash rhetorical nonsense as well as work.
Of course, those voters do value slapdash rhetorical nonsense, which is why the right shovels out so much of it. They really are fooled by empty catchphrases like "family values" and "judicial activism", phrases with no objective meaning at all. It gives the intellectually challenged the idea that they have a grasp of the genuine issues at stake because they know the lingo. The left, of course, does the same thing, but they do it very badly.
I can't vote because I'm not an American citizen, but it's nice to know that I have no value. How dehumanizing.
Miguelito,
It's not that you don't have value (i.e., that you are only worth, say, $37.42), but that you don't have values (i.e., that you consider the consequences of your actions prior to acting).
I'm curious, which phrases on the left do you see as empty rhetorical catchphrases? Not necessarily trying to defend or claim false equivalency here; It's useful to get an outside opinion.
To speak of values at all rather than morals or principles is itself a nod to relativism. One set of values can easily differ from others, but in theory morals are universal. How ironic of the Christian right to speak the language of relativism.
The claims of values makes me angry on a regular basis. What it really means is that they are voing their version of morality. The fact that I have re-embraced much of that morality myself does not mean that I or anyone else has a right to impose that on everyone. Given the oppertunity, many of these people would happily legislate away the rights of consenting adults to participate in many "immoral" sex acts. Hell, many folks, including people I am friends with, are terrified that prostitution will soon be legal in this country. Where I see a lot of benifits to those who participate in the sex trade, they see it (the decriminalization of prostitution) as sending a message that everyone approves of prostitution. The problem is that these people want the laws to be against immoral acts because otherwise it implies that society as a whole approves o all these behaviors. Never mind that we are left with the freedom of speech to denounce that which we find moraly reprehensible.
I think your comment, Treban, ties to my point. The use of the term "values" rather than morals is a political tactic by members of the Christian Right. The idea of values is so much more egalitarian and American than their true vision of the ideal society: a Christian theocracy organized along the lines of the early Massachusetts Bay colony. Such a vision will turn off too many voters, so they identify themselves as "values" voters instead of "I support my understanding of morality as the basis of law for all citizens" voters. They know that America was founded on the idea that the individual is to be protected from the majority, so they speak of "values" which is more individualistic, and even relativist.
Thomas Frank wrote a whole book on this topic called What's the Matter with Kansas? I highly recommend it.
W-R-K,
C.R.