White Male Vote Still Determines Election Winners
David Paul Kuhn wrote a fascinating piece last week for the Politico detailing the devastating erosion of white males who vote Democrat in Presidential elections. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6183.html
His analysis was very in-depth and didn't spiral into the kind of stereotyping that so many of these profiles do. As part of this demographic, I can at least vaguely connect to the narrative he spells out that is proving so frustrating to the white male, particularly he of the working-class variety. I don't dispute the omnipresent rule of thumb of modern academia that white males are a privileged group who tend to have less of a journey on the road to success than do other demographics of Americans, but just as Republican tax cuts always fail to "trickle down" the economic ladder, "white privilege" has a funny way of passing right on by the working class as well. Visit mostly white blue-collar towns virtually anywhere in small-town America, ravaged by everything from endless factory closings to rampant methamphetamine abuse, and you'll have a hard time convincing the male residents of their "privilege".
And having grown up in a working-class home that struggled through several years of bruising economic woes, I found myself getting a little hot under the collar when subjected to incessant lecture of "white male privilege" in various college courses I took. As I stated earlier, I maintained a nuanced understanding of the overall debate, but at the same time resented the fact that a class full of brash middle-class college students would walk away from these courses believing that Bubba from the trailer park working at the factory has more opportunities for success than middle-class women of color or other groups allegedly under the white male's bootheel.
And regrettably, the evidence suggests that that mindset is sticking. Throughout "limousine liberal" circles that are becoming a growing presence in the Democratic Party, the idea that illegal immigration could be taking away jobs from Americans is not only roundly ridiculed, but patently dismissed. "It's simply not happening", in the eyes of any number of diarists on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post who very clearly haven't been within 500 miles of a blue-collar jobsite in Middle America in the last 20 years. Ditto for foisting the cost of expanding children's health care on smokers, a disproportionately white working-class male pastime. Even though the strongest advocates for the program are urbane middle-class liberals, they see no moral dilemma at all with forcing the hardscrabble working stiffs across the tracks from them to single-handedly finance it.
These are simply two contemporary examples that validate in my mind that the electoral dynamic outlined in Kuhn's article is likely to continue. The "culture war" which I largely scoffed at in 2004 is real....and white males feel that they are on the receiving end. And the more that people falling behind are told that they're privileged, the less receptive they'll be to anything else being said by that individual or group. Herein lies the problem for Democrats. I don't fully understand where it has come from and find it wildly overblown, but in several regions of the country (ahem, the South), the white male vote can best be described as a cauldron of rage when referring to their thoughts towards the Democratic Party. The level of vitriol I see from the keyboards of white Southern males on virtually any political topic is breathtaking. Part of this is a result of clever Republican divide-and-conquer tactics dating back to Nixon's Southern strategy, but there's an underlying ethic in place here where Southern white males view the modern constituency of the Democratic party as its cultural enemy....and vice versa. I would've laughed this off myself four years ago, but Kuhn's insights solidified some of the thoughts I've been pondering on this subject in recent months where the Democrats got it horribly wrong on illegal immigration.
Without question, the white male demographic of Americans who have abandoned allegiance to the Democratic Party in the largest number in the past two generations would be considerably better off returning back to their Democratic roots, but I simply don't see it happening as the divide in the party continues to grow. Hillary Clinton's numbers among white males are likely to make John Kerry's 36% from 2004 look good, assuming she's the nominee as now appears increasingly likely. The Democratic Party line will probably continue to boast its commitment to enacting "comprehensive immigration reform" after the 2008 election, brushing off valid concerns about working-class wage suppression every step of the way. The Democrats do have the trade issue on their side, but I'm skeptical that Hillary plans to be any more bearish about free trade agreements than her husband ended up being even after insisting he would clean them up to be more worker-friendly during the 1992 campaign. The 1994 NAFTA vote was the single biggest blow to the Democratic Party with white male voters at least since the civil rights movement.....and if Democrats choose to return down the road of trade trick plays again, the permanent exodus of the white male working-class is imminent.
However, we're told by all the talking heads who will listen that not only are the economic concerns of white working-class males irrelevant, but that they are soon to be insignificant in national elections as well due to growing minority populations. The Latino vote, a full 7% of the electorate in 2004 and still unlikely to hit 9% in 2008, is the future of the American electorate...and the candidate who wins them over goes to the White House. Perhaps that will be the case.....two generations into the future. But with every slap across the face of white working class males by core Democratic constituencies deeming them insignificant both politically and economically, the less likely they will be to vote Democratic. White males register high voter turnouts, a full seven points higher than their share of the population at large. If the Democratic Party's share of their vote continues to erode at the rate that it has in the past 25 years, there will be no influx of immigrants large enough to put the Dems into power in the next 25 years. Sadly, I fear the wheels are in motion to accomplish just that....and it doesn't have to be.
His analysis was very in-depth and didn't spiral into the kind of stereotyping that so many of these profiles do. As part of this demographic, I can at least vaguely connect to the narrative he spells out that is proving so frustrating to the white male, particularly he of the working-class variety. I don't dispute the omnipresent rule of thumb of modern academia that white males are a privileged group who tend to have less of a journey on the road to success than do other demographics of Americans, but just as Republican tax cuts always fail to "trickle down" the economic ladder, "white privilege" has a funny way of passing right on by the working class as well. Visit mostly white blue-collar towns virtually anywhere in small-town America, ravaged by everything from endless factory closings to rampant methamphetamine abuse, and you'll have a hard time convincing the male residents of their "privilege".
And having grown up in a working-class home that struggled through several years of bruising economic woes, I found myself getting a little hot under the collar when subjected to incessant lecture of "white male privilege" in various college courses I took. As I stated earlier, I maintained a nuanced understanding of the overall debate, but at the same time resented the fact that a class full of brash middle-class college students would walk away from these courses believing that Bubba from the trailer park working at the factory has more opportunities for success than middle-class women of color or other groups allegedly under the white male's bootheel.
And regrettably, the evidence suggests that that mindset is sticking. Throughout "limousine liberal" circles that are becoming a growing presence in the Democratic Party, the idea that illegal immigration could be taking away jobs from Americans is not only roundly ridiculed, but patently dismissed. "It's simply not happening", in the eyes of any number of diarists on the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post who very clearly haven't been within 500 miles of a blue-collar jobsite in Middle America in the last 20 years. Ditto for foisting the cost of expanding children's health care on smokers, a disproportionately white working-class male pastime. Even though the strongest advocates for the program are urbane middle-class liberals, they see no moral dilemma at all with forcing the hardscrabble working stiffs across the tracks from them to single-handedly finance it.
These are simply two contemporary examples that validate in my mind that the electoral dynamic outlined in Kuhn's article is likely to continue. The "culture war" which I largely scoffed at in 2004 is real....and white males feel that they are on the receiving end. And the more that people falling behind are told that they're privileged, the less receptive they'll be to anything else being said by that individual or group. Herein lies the problem for Democrats. I don't fully understand where it has come from and find it wildly overblown, but in several regions of the country (ahem, the South), the white male vote can best be described as a cauldron of rage when referring to their thoughts towards the Democratic Party. The level of vitriol I see from the keyboards of white Southern males on virtually any political topic is breathtaking. Part of this is a result of clever Republican divide-and-conquer tactics dating back to Nixon's Southern strategy, but there's an underlying ethic in place here where Southern white males view the modern constituency of the Democratic party as its cultural enemy....and vice versa. I would've laughed this off myself four years ago, but Kuhn's insights solidified some of the thoughts I've been pondering on this subject in recent months where the Democrats got it horribly wrong on illegal immigration.
Without question, the white male demographic of Americans who have abandoned allegiance to the Democratic Party in the largest number in the past two generations would be considerably better off returning back to their Democratic roots, but I simply don't see it happening as the divide in the party continues to grow. Hillary Clinton's numbers among white males are likely to make John Kerry's 36% from 2004 look good, assuming she's the nominee as now appears increasingly likely. The Democratic Party line will probably continue to boast its commitment to enacting "comprehensive immigration reform" after the 2008 election, brushing off valid concerns about working-class wage suppression every step of the way. The Democrats do have the trade issue on their side, but I'm skeptical that Hillary plans to be any more bearish about free trade agreements than her husband ended up being even after insisting he would clean them up to be more worker-friendly during the 1992 campaign. The 1994 NAFTA vote was the single biggest blow to the Democratic Party with white male voters at least since the civil rights movement.....and if Democrats choose to return down the road of trade trick plays again, the permanent exodus of the white male working-class is imminent.
However, we're told by all the talking heads who will listen that not only are the economic concerns of white working-class males irrelevant, but that they are soon to be insignificant in national elections as well due to growing minority populations. The Latino vote, a full 7% of the electorate in 2004 and still unlikely to hit 9% in 2008, is the future of the American electorate...and the candidate who wins them over goes to the White House. Perhaps that will be the case.....two generations into the future. But with every slap across the face of white working class males by core Democratic constituencies deeming them insignificant both politically and economically, the less likely they will be to vote Democratic. White males register high voter turnouts, a full seven points higher than their share of the population at large. If the Democratic Party's share of their vote continues to erode at the rate that it has in the past 25 years, there will be no influx of immigrants large enough to put the Dems into power in the next 25 years. Sadly, I fear the wheels are in motion to accomplish just that....and it doesn't have to be.
posted by Mark at 9:03 PM
4 Comments:
I admit that even I once believed that the illegal immigrants here took the jobs that we Americans didn't want. I was heavily influenced by the similar mindset that pervades the population of the 3 border states I lived my whole life in. However, after reading about "revolving door" Mexicans taking over blue-collar factory jobs elsewhere, I found out that they are actually taking our jobs from us. They accept the poor (to us) work conditions here as it is better for them in this country than their home country. It took me a while to see that though, having seen for many years Hispanics doing jobs I would not want to (janitors, garden workers, construction). But now I see that Americans are willing to do those jobs...as long as they get adequate pay and benefits.
I was just reading about California's agricultural industry being in trouble because they were having a hard time finding enough workers, even with all the illegals. Maybe if they increased the pay and benefits and improved the work conditions, more people would be willing to work in the fields there.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/20/91655/1317
ah usual, Mark predicts the complete doom of the Democratic Party. What a f***ing joke if you ask me.
Part of the reason why White Males vote so Republican is a huge influx on immigrants. White Males in white areas aren't so republican.
sara, I think the "jobs Americans won't do" meme is increasingly losing its luster as a talking point as more and more industries become infiltrated by low-wage immigrant workers. When it was just meatpacking and fruit-picking jobs that we were told were "jobs Americans won't do", the vast majority of people accepted the tagline. Now that it's construction workers and coal miners losing their jobs to immigrant labor working for pennies on the dollar, people are starting to realize the magnitude of the dilemma if we don't control the influx. Now if only the media would get their head out of their ass on this issue.
james, it has nothing to do with predicting "complete doom". I'm basing my thesis on the linked article, which did not seem to be the work of a raving partisan in either direction. The evidence is irrefutable. White males have abandoned the Democratic Party in droves in the last generation, and we seem to be doing everything we can think of to continue the trend. We have Bush and his unpopular war and trade policies that MAY stop the bleeding this cycle, but we can't simply ignore that the largest demographic of American voters is fleeing the party like a trailer park in a tornado. Counting on the phantom "Latino vote of the future" is not gonna win us important elections in the near-term and possibly not even long-term. There need to be MORE people addressing the Democratic Party's demographic shortcomings heading into the coming election cycle, not fewer.
I found this moving tribute to Paul Wellstone on the 5th anniversary of his passing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6525.html
Post a Comment
<< Home