← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Robbie

2004 Election And The White Male

Thread ID: 14047 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2004-06-04

Wayback Archive

Robbie [OP]

2004-06-04 02:20 | User Profile

[url]http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey20.htm[/url]

WHITE MALES: HOT DEMOGRAPHIC FOR THE 2004 ELECTIONS

By Carey Roberts June 3, 2004 NewsWithViews.com

As President Bush’s polling numbers falter, Democrats are beginning to salivate over the prospect of winning the November elections. So everyone is asking, what is the demographic group that holds the key to election success?

The answer: white men, who represent a whooping 45 million of the total U.S. electorate.

Back in 1976, Jimmy Carter attracted a majority of white male voters to seal his underdog Presidential bid. But around that time, the Democratic Party began to view women as one of its core constituencies, and to define women’s needs through the lens of radical feminism. Not surprisingly, white men began to abandon the Democratic party in droves.

So by the time the 2000 elections rolled around, only 36% of white men voted for Al Gore, compared to an impressive 60% for George W. Bush. To Democratic pollsters like Celinda Lake, that was a demographic disaster. During the 2002 mid-term elections, white men came through again, handing Republicans control of the Senate.

So now Ms. Lake is arguing the Democrats will never win the White House unless they begin to reach out to the massive voting group she has dubbed the NASCAR Dads. Indeed, the male gender gap has become so worrisome that the liberal New York Times recently ran an article offering advice on how to rev up the NASCAR vote.

But the jocular tone of the article, “Yes, Democrats Can Win (Some) White Male Voters,” betrays the fact that the Democratic establishment has no intention of taking the concerns of white men seriously. Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s former campaign manager, says breezily about Kerry’s efforts to connect with this group, “The only thing he hasn’t done is sit down with a six-pack and chew tobacco with them.”

Brazile further confirms how clueless the Democrats are when she makes this pronouncement: “White males, especially working class males, care about their jobs, and they care about things like health care.”

That statement is about as profound as saying that mothers care about their babies. That’s because Brazile fails to explain why millions of men have fled the Democratic Party since 1976.

If the Democrats really want to attract the white male vote, they will need to overcome two major hurdles:

First, white men are likely to be the primary breadwinners for their families. They view higher taxes as an obstacle to their ability to be good providers. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 70% of men favored smaller government, but only 48% of women believed the same way. So men are far more likely to view big government as part of the problem, not the solution.

Second, men (and many women, as well) have grown tired of the Democrats’ endless pandering to female voters. On his website, candidate John Kerry promises, “As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women.” ([url]www.johnkerry.colm/issues/women[/url]) Really, it is doubtful that there is anyone left who truly believes the U.S. government is NOT on the side of women.

The fact that the Kerry campaign would run these canards reveals an unsettling truth – that in order to win the female vote, Kerry believes that he needs to continually nurture women’s sense of grievance and victimization. Is that John Kerry’s concept of female empowerment?

True, Kerry has begun to appear in photo-ops attired in full hunting regalia, thinking that will get him in good with the redneck crowd. But how many millionaire preppies who hail from Massachusetts know the difference between a shotgun and a pea-shooter?

Despite all the consciousness-raising by Celinda Lake, the Democrats have made no headway in bringing white men back into the fold. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, John Kerry is stuck with exactly the same numbers as Al Gore: 36% of the white male electorate.

That’s why it looks like history is going to repeat itself on Tuesday, November the second.

© 2004 Carey Roberts - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism. Mr. Roberts’ work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show.

Besides serving as a regular contributor to NewsWithViews.com, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, RenewAmerica.us, ifeminists.net, Men’s News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

Roberts now works as an independent lecturer, writer, and consultant. E-Mail: [email]CareyRoberts@comcast.net[/email]

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-04 02:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Robbie]So now Ms. Lake is arguing the Democrats will never win the White House unless they begin to reach out to the massive voting group she has dubbed the NASCAR Dads. Indeed, the male gender gap has become so worrisome that the liberal New York Times recently ran an article offering advice on how to rev up the NASCAR vote.

Howard Dean tried that and was denounced for his appeals to "racism." Too bad he didn't take it all the way instead of downplaying and backpedaling it. His candidacy certainly had some populist appeal, precisely because his personality was different from the usual type that is served up. The media made sure that was his undoing--they portrayed his forthright and fiery nature as "unstable" and "un-Presidential." The customs and attitudes that surround "being Presidential" is exactly what has contributed to this mess we're in to begin with. Eunuchs seems to exemplify the standard of being "Presidential."

So men are far more likely to view big government as part of the problem, not the solution.

Probably true, but it's a false choice. AntiYuppie has rightly pointed out on this board how America is cursed with a Republican Party that strikes a "laissez-faire" pose on economic issues while pretending to be Traditionalists on cultural issues, and a Democratic Party that extols a "liberal" approach to social and cultural issues and a more supportive approach toward using government power on behalf of the middle and working classes. I can credit AY for helping to cure me of the "big government as part of the problem" syndrome that affects "conservative" White men. I now see the value in getting rid of this foolish compartmentalization of the R and D parties and coming up with a party/movement that is Traditionalist in terms of the cultural and social sphere while rejecting libertarian plutocracy and recognizing the role of the State in protecting the American people. Buchanan sometimes hinted at this more "governmental activist" approach as "economic nationalism."

And besides, it's not the size of the government that matters as much as who controls that government, and what ends they place its resources toward. Big government can achieve right-wing ends as well. It's the ends that matter, not the means.

Second, men (and many women, as well) have grown tired of the Democrats’ endless pandering to female voters. On his website, candidate John Kerry promises, “As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women.” ([url]www.johnkerry.colm/issues/women[/url]) Really, it is doubtful that there is anyone left who truly believes the U.S. government is NOT on the side of women.

Exactly. American public and private life has been out of balance for decades in this regard. In fact, there is no good "balance"--a more healthy situation would be to weight power back in favor of men. I've long suspected it's no coincidence America really started to go down the tubes once those ever so sensitive and compassionate womyn got the vote. Sadly, there's a feminist contingent everywhere, even over at Stormfront where they curse Schopenhauer. ;)

N.B. Forrest

2004-06-04 10:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoconAvatar]Howard Dean tried that and was denounced for his appeals to "racism." Too bad he didn't take it all the way instead of downplaying and backpedaling it. His candidacy certainly had some populist appeal, precisely because his personality was different from the usual type that is served up. The media made sure that was his undoing--they portrayed his forthright and fiery nature as "unstable" and "un-Presidential." The customs and attitudes that surround "being Presidential" is exactly what has contributed to this mess we're in to begin with. Eunuchs seems to exemplify the standard of being "Presidential."

[/QUOTE]

Right. I'm no fan of Dean, but the jewsmedia gives any passionate politician the same shafting whenever they make a speech deemed too fiery: suddenly they all pile on about his "gaffes", and about how "scary" he's bound to be to wimmin. All the pols know where Marse Lipshitz has drawn the boundaries of what's acceptable and submissively refuse to cross them.

xmetalhead

2004-06-04 12:21 | User Profile

This country is a lost cause. Thinking long and hard about the men appointed by the jews to run for president reveals the depths of desolation within the "land of the free" and "home of the brave". How truly pathetic. I liked Howard Dean because he wasn't exactly status quo and had a little fire in his belly. Oh well, he had to go. That's America.