The debate about the US elections has still not abated. How did President George W. Bush manage to get 3 million votes more than Senator John Kerry, and, in addition, to have a Republican majority elected in both houses of Congress? There is not much agreement on the answers, but two themes recur in many explanations.
One is personality. At a time of uncertainty and threat, people had more confidence in the president they knew than in the candidate who seemed unproven. The second theme is values. People voted for a set of values rather than for specific policies. Indeed, some (it is said) agreed with Kerry's policies but nevertheless gave their vote to Bush, because they felt "at ease" with his general attitudes. Clearly, the US is now deeply divided in electoral terms.
An arch of blue (Democratic) states in the East, North, and West spans a huge red (Republican) area in the middle and the South. More than that, the divisions are reproduced at the local level.
Gerrymandering -- the drawing of electoral boundaries to benefit a particular political party -- is no longer necessary. People actually tend to move to areas in which a majority of others share their values, whether Republican or Democratic.
THE THREE `G'S
What exactly are these values? They have to do, or so we hear, with "god, guns, and gays." Religion plays a part in them, including the literal truth of The Bible when it comes to the story of the creation. The possession of a gun is the ultimate test of individualism, and using guns in wars is not abhorrent.
Gays and other "modern" practices are rejected as self-indulgent. As the political scientist Andrew Hacker recently put it, "the Bush candidacy was framed to make a majority by giving some 60 million people a chance to feel good about themselves."
Is all this a US phenomenon, or are there similar trends elsewhere? One answer is that as an American phenomenon, the politics of values may command a majority now, but it is by no means general. Europe and other parts of the world are equally divided. Personality undoubtedly matters, and beneath overt political differences there may also be issues of values that have not yet come to the fore.
But traditional political differences based on disagreement over fundamental values play a diminishing part in elections. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the next major leader to face an election, plays the personality card and talks about policies, but he represents above all a set of middle-class values. When he speaks of "modernization," or of "bringing things into the 21st century," he manages to suggest a strange but appealing mixture of change and stability. This has left the Conservative opposition without an effective response.
Even questions like tax cuts and stricter asylum rules do not quite hit the value chords that the Republican Party in the US has managed to touch.
The picture is similar in Germany, where the overt influence of value politics is even smaller. The German debate is still largely a policy debate. When the opposition offers the government talks on health-care reform or, most recently, on combating unemployment, the underlying competition is about competence rather than values.
VALUE CLASHES LURK
Yet underneath the common battlegrounds of political debate in Britain and Germany and elsewhere in Europe, value clashes are lurking. Parties fight for those who can be made "to feel good about themselves," but they may not fully realize that this is only partly a matter of policy.
Religion is not likely to become a major factor in European politics; opinion polls show that religious observance marks one of the few major differences between Americans and Europeans. Guns also have a different place in the European mind; it is their absence that most Europeans regard as important. A pacifist streak of values is also unmistakable in Europe.
But the issue of political correctness ("gays") plays a so-far underrated part in Europe as well. Most importantly, the Europe itself divides Europeans, as the "national question" arises in each European state. It is an issue of values inspired by fear. People want to know where they belong, and in the process they turn against the US and toward Europe, or against Europe and toward their country. Either way, we leave the realms of policies, and even of politics, and enter the murky domain of symbols and myth.
This, at any rate, is the main risk that democratic countries face, for the politics of values is a dangerous development. It reintroduces fundamental divisions in societies whose greatest democratic achievement was precisely to banish fundamentalism from politics. Enlightened public debate must be a dispute about policies contained by a community of values. Insisting on this is therefore a primary objective of the politics of freedom.
Ralf Dahrendorf, author of numerous acclaimed books and a former European commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics, and a former warden of St. Antony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US