Yeah, I know. But when he’s right, he’s right.
George Will’s topic today is the so-called "values voter" and he begins like this:
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.
Will recognizes that liberals, moderates, libertarians, and conservatives of the non-social kind also vote their values, too. For example, isn’t environmentalism — the desire for proper stewardship of the Earth and its resources — a "value"? Isn’t federalism a "value"?
But as Will points out, social conservatives have usurped the phrase as if the only values worth discussing are values that matter to them — end of abortion, prayer in schools, etc. And to be sure, those are values, but certainly not the only ones. Freedom, for example, is obviously a value, but when you legislate morality (as social conservatives want to do), you necessarily deny freedom. That’s why pro-choice proponents can rightfully designate their position as one of value, too.
Social conservatives are quick to label those on the left as "elitist". But what could more elitist than assuming that you have the monopoly on values?