"Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?" by George Will

[gully]

It is odd that some conservatives are eager to promote the semantic vanity of the phrase "values voters." And it is odder still that the media are cooperating with those conservatives.

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government -- about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues -- they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives' monopoly of the label "values voters," the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.

Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/17/AR2006051701874.html

[subterranean]

1. Will makes a valid point about "values voters", but...

I wonder how he determined that Hilary Clinton and John McCain are the "front-runners" for the 2008 presidential nominations?? They may be the most frequently mentioned in the media as potential candidates, but does that make them front-runners?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. He makes them out to be...

...the front runners because that's what he wants to see happen. He, like most Neocons, is frightened by the prospect of Feingold or Gore as the Dem '08 nominee. Hillary's who they think they can beat--she's who they'll talk up in hopes of making it happen.