Letters to the Editor
-
As other point out...
If a voter leans to the right socially, but isn't rich, why not vote GOP? The Democratic Party leadership has long since decided to fund their races by adopting GOP foreign and domestic economic policy and banking on the hate social liberals and cuckold unions have for the GOP to scrounge up a margin for victory -- turning "the lesser of two evils" into a permanent strategy.
If Democrats took on banks rather than taking their money, took on the healthcare industry rather than taking their money, fought for billions in public school spending, promised a $12 minimum hourly wage, etc., they would get a lot of white men without losing any minorities or women (probably turning more of them out). A united front on these issues would make it hard for the Right to apply the "liberal tax and spend" label, but so long as only a handful of Democrats represent the public it's easy to do (notice how msm talking heads -- including "Democrats" -- call people opposed to the war the "liberal left" -- about 65% of the public).
In fact, that Democrats don't make these obvious adjustments suggests that the current leadership believes winning is less important than keeping the status quo. Probably has much to do with the fact that party big wigs owe their party control to fundraising capabilities and would be useless in an honest party.
-
The South
I agree that this article needed to be more specific, and was really talking about losing the South. Hopefully this will end photo-ops like John Kerry duck hunting or whatever the hell he was doing.
-
Democrats' neglect of illegal immigration is a lost opportunity
Both political parties have ignored illegal immigration because it's a boon to the rich and large corporations who control all of our political establishment. Illegal immigrants = cheap labor. It's that simple.
It just so happens that native-born men without college degrees (most of whom are white) are most likely to feel the impact of illegal labor, as their livelihoods are undercut by it.
If the Democrats had lived up to their progressive reputation by coming out strongly against illegal immigration 10 years ago or more, they might have been able to win back some of the working-class white male vote. Yes, it's unfortunately possible - even probable - that some of these appeals would have been racist. However, it's not racist to insist on simple enforcement of immigration policy - something taken for granted in most of the world's developed democracies and a fact that many PC liberals would rather ignore.
So the Democrats lost an opportunity to protect American wages and gather more votes in the process. The reason: they'd rather suck up to rich Hollywood types who love their Jamaican nannies but don't really want to pay Social Security taxes. Once again, we find the Democrats deserve to lose because their progressivism is so often transparently phony.
-
I blame NASCAR
Face it, car racing is even more boring than golf, except for the brief spectacular accidents and the possibility of death lurking around each curve. Any culture that bases its masculinity around 6 mpg dinosaur belching fire and ruining hearing for miles around needs its head examined. Still, I'm not sure you should write off any state. Local party organizations have to be kept strong.
Having offered southern whites the reacharound for 100 years until LBJ, maybe Democrats should be a little humble here, but less pandering. There's always a chance the South will turn, like Virginia has. Just don't expect the good ol' boys to change that much culturally, otherwise they react to you like... well, like the Sunnis react to our offer of "democracy."
Still, every time I see those NASCAR monster cars with ads on every available surface farting around the corners at breakneck speed and exploding in great fountains of shredded metal, I think of the race car scenes in On the Beach. Surely, this is nearly the end of this petroleum worship -- or is it death worship?
-
I'm amazed at how many people didn't read the article before posting
Hey all you dummies whining that Salon is attacking and stereotyping all White Men - READ THE STORY! It clearly states that it's talking about a certain, self-indentifying subset of white males. I'm a white male and I take no offense at this article. Stop being such a bunch of fucking crybabies and learn to read. DUH!
-
Why Isn't the DLC Dead Yet?
Yet centrist Democrats continue to urge the party to find new ways to lure white male voters back into the fold.
Somebody kill it, quick. Do it now.
Before Hillary makes Mondale look like a winner.
-
Um, Arlo Figg...
You do understand that many Latino people are, in fact, racially distinct from Iberians from Europe (both Spanish and Portuguese) by simple virtue of 500 years of intermarriage with native Americans and Africans here in the new world? In Spanish, the term is "mestizo" - which generally denotes a mix of European and Indian genes. Did you seriously not know this?
As for the rest of your crazed rant, I still have no clue what you were talking about.
-
All White Men are not Created Equal
I read the article, and indeed, Shaller notes that white male union members vote Democratic, so he's not talking about all males.
Then he goes ahead and talks about all 'white men' again, which he then calls "Bubba", which is a slang for southern non-union white males. So he's only talking about white male southern men? Unfortunately, the article is written to encourage this confusion. And he's a prof!
Edwards does have the best chance of winning white working class southerners. A working class populist could win their votes, and many more besides, and Edwards is the closest to it. Of course Edwards is not working class now, but his roots were in that class, which stands for something. Even some of these guys have had it with Iraq.
This essay is tied to Shaller's prior essay about ignoring the South. That is why the term Bubba / NASCAR dad is used over and over again. Not referring to an Irish Catholic male in Boston's Southie, evidently.
What is disturbing about Shaller is that he does not approve of class-based appeals, otherwise he wouldn't write this stuff. That is what he shares with the Democratic Leadership Counsel, which he does not ostensibly support. They both want to avoid true populism.