Simplifying, Misunderstanding, and Condescending to the People Who Voted for Bush

Peter Schramm writes that "The mainstream media and the liberals (and the French) are already starting to try to have their spin color the election returns: Bush's victory was not broad-based; it was tied to angry evangelicals voting, egged on by homophobia. Liberals are insular in their thinking and this insularity, which has caused them to lose touch with the rest of the country, now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. While this is just the start—other spins will follow—it is worth noting, and David Brooks has already reacted to it. He argues that it was a broad and deep victory for Bush":

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong …

John Moser adds that

It matters little that Kerry had explanations for all of [his] positions, and that he seemed to address them satisfactorily in his three debates against Bush. What mattered ultimately was that he needed to explain them at all. And this gets down to the real difference between the two men in this race—George W. Bush was Andrew Jackson; John Kerry was Woodrow Wilson.

The President, like Jackson before him, didn’t need to explain his views. Jackson’s views struck most people as nothing more than common sense…

Jacksons try to tailor their message to the desires and fears of the average person. Wilsons tell the average people that their desires and fears are irrational, and try to convince them that they should want something else.

Jacksons lay out their agenda clearly, in simple black-and-white terms. Wilsons tell people how complicated the world is, suggesting that public affairs is therefore best left in the hands of an educated elite.

Jacksons act decisively in defending what they see as the national interest. Wilsons fret about the "international community."