In Defense of Non-Values Voters
Oct 22nd, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 9 Comments |
My wife, having just run across this article: Romney wins straw poll at Values Voters Summit, requested that I defend her. She wouldn’t fit in at such a summit, you see, even though she votes her values.
I’m her husband, so defending her is my job. And being a musician, I take requests.
Here goes:
Every now and again one of my students will write a paper that assumes “having values” is a good thing. The problem is with the people who don’t have values.
Putting the issue in these terms is completely understandable, given how people talk. But the debate isn’t between nihilists and everybody else. It’s between people who think different things have (more or less) value.
Essentially, people confuse having values with having value.
(This is due to the fact that “value” is both a noun and a verb. To clear up the issue, all one has to do is use synonyms like “worth,” “good,” or “importance.” You can’t “good a good.”)
Calling some voters “values voters” implies that politics can be done without a value-basis. This comes from the American idea that Church and State can be separated, and therefore that morality and politics can function independently.
Therefore, calling some voters “values voters” implies that they are trying to mix two things that don’t belong together: morality and politics. Then follow the accusations of irrationality, theocracy, and lunacy.
Values voters, in other words, should feel insulted by the label.
There. I have defended my wife. And if anyone ever dared to call her a “values voter,” I’d call them a “fascist.” So be warned, you mudslingers.
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
woohoo!! Here’s to defending one’s spouse!
So then, since I assume that, like most organizations, the people behind the Values Voters Summit chose their own name, and since participation is a matter of choice, shall we call the participants self-loathing?
Amanda–
:-D
Scott–
*laugh* That does seem to be what I am claiming. (It’s amusing to watch oneself sometimes to see what is going to come out of one’s mouth next . . .)
People who use the term values voters in a derogatory manner are just ignorant of their own presuppositions and decision making process.
Indeed. And those who use it to refer to only one group of voters are using the term “values” in a misleading way.
[...] (Background [sort of] here, and here.) [...]
It is a strange title, indeed.
You’re 100% right about how politics cannot be separated from values. Everyone’s heard the phrase “you can’t legislate morality.” I’ve never quite gotten what that’s supposed to mean since we legislate virtually nothing else.
However, we all know that the phrase “values voters” has come to mean a certain subset of one or two issue voters who vote based on those specific issues, abortion almost always being one. (Others frequently include things like opposition to gay marriage, etc.)
Those of us who, for example, vote because we are morally in favor of capitalism are certainly voting our values, but for some reason we don’t get called “values voters.” Only the anti-abortion people get that label.
Still, I don’t think they should be insulted. The phrase “values voters,” taken literally, seems to imply that they’re the only group of voters who aren’t just voting randomly because they’re nihilists. I’m pretty sure it’s everyone else who should feel insulted.
Andrew–
Yeah. You’re right. *chuckle* Maybe we should just all feel insulted :-)