Letters to the Editor
-
Gee, What Are You, Thomas?
What a good idea. Further alienate, stereotype and scapegoat white, working-class men. There's a ticket for winning!
-
Painfully Dumb
What a stupid article. We should all pander to common sense, and realize that there are a lot of white guys who have common sense along with black guys, asian guys hispanic guys and a boat load of women of all types.
The writer is clearly not color blind. There is a political party that is having a rough go of it lately, they are a bit lost too - maybe they need some help Tom.
Doug
-
He's just casting too broadly
What he means is "Those rednecks who don't vote for us". Of course there are rednecks everywhere so it's not just southerners. It also means people all over the US who also already don't vote Democratic. Since the next election will, like all the other recent ones, be a virtual tie, the key is to push that 5-8% of the electorate you can sway. Trust me, going after the Black Pentecostal vote or the Catholic Mexican vote is also a complete waste of time. They don't align with you on social issues.
-
Ask the Right Question, and They Will Come
Just ask the rhetorical question; you voted for the republicans? How'd that work out for you? I think the democrats will be pleased with the response.
(Apologies to Dr.Phil)
-
Is the Democrats's intellectual mediocrity related to chasing the White male vote?
i am strongly disappointed in what I have read. This article is a display of identity politics at its worst. There is a lot of the kind of demographically hocus-pocus that is sinking American public discourse into oblivion. So much, in fact, that there is no way to tackle the issue. However, I hope thise few sentences will suffice to state my point:
"Tens of millions of white men still vote Democratic, of course, and not just Prius drivers, eggheads, grunge-band leaders or Warren Beatty's Hollywood buddies. Most notably, working-class white men who are current or retired union members cast their votes for Democrats, in the stubborn belief that only Democrats will protect and promote their economic interests."
Shall I say that these sentences read like an inventory of sociological clichés? It happens that long ago to be liberal, conservative, or progressive, stopped being a matter of skin color or ethnic identity, and even of social class. The GOP strategists have been taking care of that. This is not my point, my point regards the fact that we still explain the dispointing political incapacity of the Democratic Party, who I regretfully happen to be a registered member, in terms of ethnic issues when the moves of the Democrats regarding the war in Iraq, General Petraeus's frolics included, suggest that the problem is not an issue regarding identity politics, but sheer intellectual mediocrity in exploiting available political opportunities. Let's face it, the Democratic Party has become the Cinderella of corporate capital, while the GOP still plays the role of the ugly half-sister who gets all the perks.
-
paradigmographics?
Perhaps the reason some consultants are so concerned is because so many of them are white men, too?
As for asking the right question, in order to bring them back into the Democratic fold... I don't think that's a magic bullet that will accomplish that feat, since there is still approximately 28% (according to polls) who continue to support Bush and who are still in favor of the war. They may not be all white men, but I would guess that a lot of them must be.
-
Are we discussing demographics? Or stereotypes?
Because Schaller, who has a good point hidden in there somewhere, keeps mashing the two ideas together. Talking about white males, or white southern males, or non-union vs. union white males--fine, those are clearly defined categories. But when we start talking about "NASCAR dads," or "security moms," or the "soccer" types, or whatever, we're confusing the isue with--well, not even stereotypes, but lazy-bored-media memes, for god's sake. At times, he seems to be defining Teh White Males as Those Guys Who Aren't Going to Vote Democratic Anyway. Yes, by all means, don't bother with those guys.
I nearly typed "NASCAR dadaists" up there. That may be my demographic.
-
Tell the truth that Democrats hate the common white man
Years of democrats piling on white males are finally being acknowledged. Thank you!
Now we white males can get down to the business of dismantling the democrat party once and for all.
-
A pretty good article
If Democrats would just learn to stop doing any of the following or similar foolish activies: wearing tank helmets; toting guns; shooting small animals; saluting; wife kissing; wood chopping; going to NASCAR rallies, then who knows? They might even win back the white male vote. Because none of this stuff ever fools anyone.
-
Don't Read Too Much Into the Stats
While these stats may hold up for Presidential elections, they offer cold comfort to the Democratic party when it comes to Congressional elections. The party must not only win the Presidential race. It needs to expand it's thin majorities in the House and in the Senate. Doing that will require some attention to middle of the road voters and some erosion into traditional Republican demographic groups, especially if the party wants to hold on to Bue Dog seats in the South.
It pisses me off to no end to see liberal members of the party complain about Blue Dog Democrats and other moderates (who are far more conservative than I am, too, by the way). But without them, there is no majority in either the House or the Senate. A party has to be a coalition of broad interest groups and ideologies or it just doesn't work. If you need any evidence of that, you need look no further than today's Republican party which has abandoned it's moderates.
-
There's probably more to this....
Schaller doesn't break things down by region. I would guess that the "white boy" factor varies by union membership and socioeconomic status. In other words, what Dems really lose is the Southeast and parts of the Midwest & West. The Black vote is a compensation in the South. Places like Iowa or Wyoming are more difficult (and also much less rich in votes).
As a white guy with a PhD and Midwestern blue collar roots, I can say that the Dems lost a lot of the white guys with civil rights and this is more acute in the South where Unions are non-existent and people are willing to support neo-feudal social systems if they can feel that they're still oppressing people who don't look like them (I used to live in Atlanta and this sums up even much of the "new South", which isn't that "new" or moderate; it's neo=-Feudalism is one reason why the South is a long way from transcending long held ways of life and voting).
The trouble with not courting the Bubbas is also failing to to really address blue collar issues. Liberals (meaning people with college degrees) have been distancing themselves from labor issues since the 50s. The Jimmy Hoffas of this world tended to make people forget the Walter Reuethers and liberalism has veered ever toward middle class issues, with often patronizing embraces of minorities. The women's movement failed as a broad based economic movement, even though many women in the pink collar ghettos were happy to join--abortion and what to do with lesbians took the stage away from more basic issues (I'm pro-choice and gay, but I'm not blind to what a difference emphasis and infighting make). The environmentalists have consistently ignored poor and working class people, even though they bear a much greater burden of pollution. And these are just a few of the liberal interest groups... The Dems and the progressive movement, generally, needs to look at the big picture and occasionally pound the heads of their interest group compadres. Yes, we can probably forget the hard core Bubbas, but we can't forget what we should stand for, and that will help in the places where the Dems have hope.