Dems Must Woo White Men To Win

Politico: Flight Of White Male Voters Away From Democrats Will Shape 2008 Election

(The Politico) 
There has been much discussion about the GOP's ability to reach poor and working-class whites. But the phenomenon was overwhelmingly a story of men.

Between 1948 and 2004, for the poorest third of Americans, white women's support for Democrats hardly shifted. For white working-class men, there was a 25 percent decline. Within the middle class of white America, the Democratic Party lost the support of 15 percent of white women. But white men left Democrats at twice that rate: 29 percent.

The white backlash against liberalism, of course, predated the 1980 election. It was Lyndon Johnson, 16 years earlier, hours after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, who turned to Bill Moyers and said, "I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."

Racial animus may have been part of the problem for Democrats. At least Democrats could feel good about themselves while losing elections. But it was one of Johnson's own confidants, Harry McPherson, who later concluded that the problem with white male voters was far more complex - not confined to the South or racial politics.

"Democratic primaries and conventions often rocked with the language of rebuke," McPherson wrote in a 1972 memoir. "Very like, it has occurred to me, the language many wives use in speaking to their husbands, particularly toward the end of marriages. You never think of the children, or of my mother, or of me; only of yourself. Substitute the ignored disadvantaged, the homeless, people trapped downtown. The reaction among husbands, for whom read 'white male voters,' is what is normally provoked by attempts to burden people with a sense of guilt."

As portrayed by the new breed of liberalism, the white man held all the cards, and everyone else's bad deal was his fault. The problem was that the bulk of white men did not feel like dealers or players. They felt like pieces on someone else's table, and their livelihood, their family's very stability, was in richer men's hands, as well. Increasingly, as Reagan assumed the presidency, many white men, particularly those in industrial trades, found their lives marked by instability. This was true in the home, as cultural changes refashioned the role of women and the place of sex in popular culture. And it was especially true in the workplace, as many once-secure union jobs disappeared.


Between 1979 and 1983 alone, more than 9 million Americans were added to the poverty rolls and more than half were from white, male-headed families. In 2004, white men still constituted the vast majority of leading CEOs. Yet many more white men still live the hardscrabble life. About 21 percent of white men and 22 percent of white women who voted in 2004 made $30,000 to $45,000 in household income.

These men are seen as failing to capitalize on "white male privilege." Those who felt powerless, like so many women and minorities, were told they were indeed powerful. Conservatives came to validate a struggle many liberals had demeaned as merely the anger of the "angry white male."

"Liberals didn't realize they had a whole constituency of disenfranchised people without rights who were called standard masculine men," Harvard University social psychologist William Pollack explains. "I'm not saying that all liberal Democrats saw these men as the enemy, but they didn't see them as the victim - but these men felt more and more victimized."

Today, many white men continue to feel disempowered, distant from liberal mores and unmoored from the stability that their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed. Like others, white men feel controlled by bosses and compelled by fiscal responsibility. They take on thankless work to meet their obligations, and it often creates a sense of compromised manhood. If a white man's salary places him in the upper class, his self-worth is often tied to that wage. For many, the definition of being a man has meant surrendering what one wants to do for what one must do. This has long been true. But modern liberalism no longer saw it that way. The hard life was said to be the easy life if one was born white and male.

Yet many Democrats expected middle- and lower-class whites to ignore their grievances with liberalism and vote Democratic based on tax policy, as if issues like the breakdown of the American family were a superficial concern. This was the worldview behind the 2004 Thomas Frank bestseller, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

But the voters Democrats lost were not conned by distracting "wedge issues" like abortion or gun control. They quite knowingly voted for their self-interest, but they defined that interest in ways that were deeper than the size of their paychecks.

Even when efforts were made to reach some white men in 2004, it was limited to shallow discussions. The regular white guy was referred to as the "NASCAR dad." Like Republicans' outreach to African-Americans in the 2000 and 2004 general elections, the rhetoric failed because it was accurately perceived by both groups as mostly artifice.

In some sense, Kerry was touted as the war hero to appeal to these men, and their wives, many of whom share similar values. But when it came time to defend his fight in Vietnam against a conservative veterans group, Kerry's senior aides counseled reticence.

It was "my mistake," says the Kerry campaign's chief strategist, Tad Devine, though other senior officials gave similar advice. "Obviously [I was] too much lawyer and not enough soldier," Devine continues. "Not that I'm a soldier. I'm a lawyer. That's my problem. I needed to not be a lawyer. I needed to appeal to the gut in [Kerry]." He adds, "We should have pleaded guilty to being tough and stayed with it, because, really, it was much truer to John."

A failed experiment

Today, many leading liberal intellectuals continue to argue that Democrats should not concern themselves with fundamental weaknesses. Thomas F. Schaller, author of "Whistling Past Dixie," has argued Democrats should ignore their deficit with white men (again, more than a third of voters) as well as the South (which remains the nation's largest region, by a margin of tens of millions of Americans).

In fact, this has been the de facto Democratic strategy for decades. Safe to say the experiment has failed.

The recent midterm elections exhibit the potential for Democrats in closing the white male gap. Democrats never would have won back the Senate in 2006 without candidates not of the urbane sort winning more white men. In crucial Senate contests, from Montana farmer Jon Tester to Robert P. Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania - whose father was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views - the Democrats' victory was, above any other, dependent upon significant improvements with white men, according to exit polls.

Recently, in a conversation with veteran liberal strategist James Carville, I raised the popular belief within the liberal base that Democrats should ignore their weaknesses with white men and the South. Carville scoffed and called it an "idiotic argument."

Yet that is exactly the argument that has kept Democrats the minority party for decades.

It is, after all, the white working man who once was the backbone of the Roosevelt coalition. America has changed since. But Democrats' need to compete for white men's votes has not.

This article was adapted from "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma," published Thursday by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of St. Martin's Press.

[standlee5]

radiob, I agree. totally.

[signof4]

Still waiting for the WOO. WOO me, you dems....WOO me!!! :)

[lostcountry1]

good story. i have been saying that the dems. need to be more conservative on real issues in this country, but instead they only try to drag everybody as far left as they can. they must believe that there are enough ***,illegals and other minorities to outvote hardworking americans. their loyalty is not to the working class people, but only to the aclu and other far left liberals. i will never vote democrat again. i cannot vote republican either as they are nothing but a group of playground bullies who only want to have it all their way.there is currently NO-ONE running to vote for.until i see someone that will stop the illegal invasion, stop the illegal war, and bring the cost of living in line with wages,i will not throw my vote away.enough far left liberalism, enough far right war-mongering. who can i vote for?

[radiob-2009]

Both political parties have permanently lost my vote, neither party is representing Americans, only the corporations. The democrats have grandstanded on virtually every issue and the republicans are unable to get out of lock step with Bush. Our nation is at a crossroads and needs all GOOD MEN to Stand UP. Neither party cares about the average citizen who makes up 80% of the electorate. The wave of social programs created by the democratic party have failed, no amount of counseling, pyschiatric therapy can help the vast majority of the "our trouble makers" in society. Lighter punishments, jail overcrowding and reduced jail times for offenders of virtually every nature. The republican party on it''s behalf has gone from the party of smaller government to larger government (none of which commuticates with one another)fiscal soundness has gone out the door. The world has changed and the politicians have become "lapdogs" instead of statesman for the American public.Time for a new "Boston Tea Party" with all 536 (including the president) to be dumped into the harbor.

[softspoken99]

Yah, we''re the midgets. From midget to superpower, in one swift sentence.

[ajmarine1]

"All pieces in a masterful chessgame that helped make freedom a thing evil and unwanted."

Posted by softspoken99,

The USA has been around only 231 years, the rest of the world has been around for thousands and thousands year; we keep thinking and saying we know what''s best for them, when we are the new kids on the block.

The people that want freedom come here to live, the ones that don''t want it can stay where they are and live as they want, or as their governments will allow them to live. We have got to stop being the policeman for the world.

[softspoken99]

Its not so much that there is hate for these things. There''s hate for all things. Its that there are always the same people talking about multiple things. And that you eventually stop believing in them. The same faces ... "Political experts" ... Social engineers, who''ve conveniently taken it upon theirselves everybody else''s providence. Thats what really pisses me off.

[softspoken99]

"I''''m not going to get into another debate about "what are the real reasons for the war," I think that has been beat to death and everyone is already entrenched in what they believe."

The sad thing about it is: There might have really been a conspiracy. There might have really been something diabolical. And in fact relied on the status quo to help it do its work. Status quos such as racism? Sexxxxism? Racial divides? Spin? All pieces in a masterful chessgame that helped make freedom a thing evil and unwanted.

[softspoken99]

There is no racism in this country today. Other than whats "talked about" in the media.

[rajjar-2009]

For me most of this article is true. I switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican because the Democrats seem to be the anti-White male party.

The article mentions racial animus as a reason White men have defected and it is right. Only it got the direction of the animus wrong. White men didn''t defect because we are racist, we defected because the Democratic party is racist. It is virulently anti-White (as well as being misandristic).

The candidate that 1) secures the border and stops the illegal invasion, 2) restores men''s rights in the pro-creative process and in family/marriage concerns, 3) re-regulates big business (particularly the media and the banking system) 4) balances the budget, and 5) restores the Constitution will get my vote.

It''s dawning on me, as well as the majority of White men that we will probably have to create/turn to a third party.

[rajjar-2009]

For me most of this article is true. I switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican because the Democrats seem to be the anti-White male party.

The article mentions racial animus as a reason White men have defected and it is right. Only it got the direction of the animus wrong. White men didn''t defect because we are racist, we defected because the Democratic party is racist. It is virulently anti-White (as well as being misandristic).

The candidate that 1) secures the border and stops the illegal invasion, 2) restores men''s rights in the pro-creative process and in family/marriage concerns, 3) re-regulates big business (particularly the media and the banking system) 4) balances the budget, and 5) restores the Constitution will get my vote.

It''s dawning on me, as well as the majority of White men that we will probably have to create/turn to a third party.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 09:02 PM : Oct 04, 2007,

Same to you Tucker;

Live Long and Prosper.

[ajmarine1]

It''''s all about oil and nothing else.

Posted by tuckerndfw,

I''m not going to get into another debate about "what are the real reasons for the war," I think that has been beat to death and everyone is already entrenched in what they believe.

I still say that if is was all done for just oil, for what we have spent in blood, treasure, and lose of respect around the world, we could have bought every drop of oil Iraq could have ever produced.

History will tell if this was a visionary plan to bring peace to the Middle East or a stupid plan by a stupid man.

[ajmarine1]

"Not to mention being counterproductive for the stated goals. (eliminate terrorism)"

Posted by tuckerndfw,

I was for the war, I still think Saddam needed to go for a number of reasons, but the stated goals have changed so much from year to year, it''s hard to know what they are anymore. I do think this is about more than just Iraq, Iraq is just a piece of the Middle East puzzle.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw at 07:17 PM : Oct 04, 2007,


"United States As of September 29, 2006, around $374.5 billion has been allocated by the U.S. Congress for the Iraq war.[1] Also, around $454 billion has been spent as of September 26, 2007, based on current expenditure rates.[2]

The current rate of U.S. expenditure in Iraq is approximately $10 billion a month"

This IS alot of money, but is it an investment in the future of the US or like you said, "a bank heist?"

[ajmarine1]

tuckerndfw,

"The Baader-Meinhof Gang, who called themselves the Red Army Faction, and two other terrorist groups went killing dozens of people. In 1968 the prominent German journalist Ulrike Meinhof joined the former juvenile delinquent Andreas Baader and his girlfriend Gudrun Ensslin in launching the most terrifying era in German postwar history.

The student protests of 1968 gradually became riots. The young terrorists in their desperate attempt to start the world revolution took to terrorism: mere bank robbings turned to kidnappings and murders. Most of the leaders of the most famous West German terrorist group, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, were captured in mid-1972. Their followers continued kidnapping and killing people over the next five years in an effort to secure their leaders'' release from prison, but it was all in vain. The German government had no intention of releasing them."

Sounds like some nice play mates you had there Tucker.

[bizzzz-2009]

Almost EVERYBODY I have spoke to is voting for Hillary because Bill will be there.
Are we going to elect a President during this time in our history that, for most people, doesn%u2019t even stand on her own merits? Is that the profile of a war time leader? If you ask what Hillary%u2019s accomplished, most people will answer what Bill accomplished.
This war is not going to end because we want it to end. This war is going to end when the enemy stops attacking us. I don%u2019t know if any of the candidates could stop this war if they wanted to, unless we all agreed to bow at the hand of radical Islam or kill them until they give up. It''s not up to us, it''s up to them.
Iran poses a nuclear threat if they are able to pass a device off to a terrorist organization, without Iranian handprints. YOU VOTE FOR HILLARY NEXT YEAR, YOU WILL GET BILL CLINTON!
HILLARY CLINTON = BILL CLINTON
Clinton ignored the first Twin Tower bombing in 93, he ignored the two embassy bombings in Africa, he ignored the Cole bombing in Yemen. He degraded and defunded the intelligence agencies for years, to the point that they were left impotent.

[bizzzz-2009]

tuckerndfw,
I didn''t say the war has been a success, nor did I say we were winning. I''m saying that it was the right move to engage the middle east with boots on the ground.
I''m not a big Bush fan. I think he''s an idiot. However, if Iran poses a nuclear threat by passing a device off to a terrorist organization, then Bush''s decision to go to Iraq was correct. It%u2019s that simple. Unfortunately for some people, that pill is hard to swallow. IF, INDEED, WE HAVE TO ATTACK IRAN, AS FRANCE AND GERMANY STATE IS POSSIBLE, THAN DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS WILL HAVE TO CONCEDE THAT WHILE BUSH''S INVASION OF IRAQ WAS CLUMSY, IT WAS ALSO SMART.
What Democrats don''t understand is that invading Iraq was never about WMD''s or oil. It was about Iran. It is a policy that George Bush could never tell the truth about, especially 5 years ago, but with Ahmedinigad statements yesterday, the Iraq invasion is starting to make more and more sense.
I look forward to electing a different Republican to office. I think that Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain aren''t that crazy about Bush either and will do things differently than Bush. Plus, they all have more leadership capabilities that any of the SPINELESS, WIMPY Democratic candidates who, by the way, the terrorists are licking the chops for- hoping and praying they get elected. Answer the terrorists prayers, vote Democrat next year.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by tuckerndfw,

"But, the army didn''''t tell me there was a terrorist war going on in Europe until I got there"

When was that?

[ajmarine1]

The Marines sent their guys to the Army MP School at Ft Gordon, GA. The guy who bunked above me was a Marine.

We had great times harassing each other (hey, jarhead, you can''''t go anywhere, the photographer called in sick ... )

Posted by tuckerndfw

When I went to NCO School on Okinawa, we had some dogfaces with us.

It doesn''t matter what branch of the service you were in on what you did, all service to your country is Honorable service, thank you.