The Anatomy of Myth

[teach1st]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34783-2004Dec4.html

By Dick Meyer, Washington Post
Sunday, December 5, 2004

Social and intellectual conventions are supposed to settle slowly, but conventional wisdom can congeal instantly and without much wisdom. That's what has happened over the past several weeks with a prevailing interpretation of this year's presidential election -- the great moral values theory.

The Big Political Idea of the '04 election goes something like this: "Moral values" turned out to be the most important issue to voters, not the economy or the Iraq war or terrorism. President Bush won because a legion of "values voters" -- whose growing numbers escaped the attention of an inattentive media -- preferred him. The Democrats are doomed until they can woo the voters who belong to this new political force.

It's a neat theory -- but wrong. How it came to be regarded as the real story of Bush's victory is a fascinating and sobering example of journalism's quest for freshness and surprise.

Here's the simple fact: The evidence that moral values determined the election rests on a single dodgy exit poll question. And it's not at all clear that more voters are preoccupied with moral values now than were fretting about "family values" on Election Day 1996, when exit pollsters included that phrase in a question about "priorities for the new administration." But in the often arid and repetitive arena of American political ideas, fun new contestants can be hard to disqualify. The myth of the moral values election is proving hard to snuff out.

More

[rodeodance]

1. How does one tackle 'commonsence"?

....Despite the best efforts of myth-busters, the moral values doctrine has morphed .....

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. A topic such as moral values is something that is easy for many to wrap

their little brains around. Just staking a claim to "moral values" is all it takes for some uninformed voters to hitch a ride on the train to hell.

Remember what the repugs did to Clinton for 8 long years and thought nothing of it.

I am hearing on CNN that many places of bidness are putting cameras over the shoulders of people in cubicles, people working kiosks... cuz.. they cannot afford to lose any of the valuable minimum wage to email checking, or "unauthorized phone calls to family" etc.... however at the same time.... they can afford to either have the person in charge who is making possibly 6 figures scrutinize this minimum wage earner's activities, or possibly hire a full time or a fleet of full time minimum wage earners to scrutinize the other minimum wage earners' activities. Does anyone else feel that they are going a little too far?? Dudn't this seem a wee bit ridiculous?

[pretzel4gore]

3. the Big Lie, repeated incessantly

in other words

[RedCheckShirt]

4. Bush didn't win. The election was stolen

eom