Ronald Brownstein has a very interesting article on the growing size of the gender gap in today’s Los Angeles Times. Although the term “gender gap” originated as a reference to Democratic strength among women, Brownstein argues convincingly, with evidence, that
“President Bush’s overwhelming strength among white men looms as a central obstacle between Democrats and the White House as 2004 approaches.”
White men make up just under 40% of the electorate, and Bush’s margin over Gore among this group in 2000 was 24%. I am tempted to say it was “only” 24%. Even Bush’s father’s margin over Dukakis in 1988, at 27%, was low by historical standards. As Brownstein points out, “Republican incumbents Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 carried white men by 35 percentage points en route to landslide reelections, according to network exit polls.” The Republican margin among white men was lower in 1992 and 1996 because Perot pulled many of them into his column.
If President Bush can increase his margin among white men in 2004, especially if he can increase it substantially, it may create too great an obstacle for any Democrat to overcome. Especially Dean, it would appear.
Recent polls underscore the challenge for Democrats with white men. In an ABC/Washington Post survey released last week, white men preferred Bush over an unnamed Democrat in 2004 by 62% to 29%, a head-turning 33-point margin; by contrast, white women gave Bush just a 10-point lead.
Similarly, a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll this month found Bush leading an unnamed Democrat by 30 points among white men and enjoying a 68% approval rating with the group.
….
… [T]wo polls this month pitting Dean against Bush gave the president crushing 36-point leads among white men.
Brownstein offers a number of explanations of why Bush appeals so strongly to white men. Here’s my favorite:
Bush’s strength among white men derives as much from his personal style as his policy choices, most analysts agree. Blunt in his words, comfortable on his ranch, dismissive of ceremony, impatient with diplomacy, Bush fits “an old-fashioned male ideal, deeply embedded in our cultural mythology,” said Bill Galston, a former Clinton advisor now at the University of Maryland.
The ideal “is that a real man is a man of few words and determined, resolute action: like in [the movie] ‘High Noon.’ And Bush captures this almost perfectly and effortlessly.”
If you will go read — or even better, re-read — my comments here (Note: this link didn’t work but has now been fixed), I think you will see why I think Galston’s observation is so shrewd and perceptive. (The quick among you will have already guessed: it’s because he agrees with me.)
I’m white, male and hetero, and on top of that, I’m married to an Asian-American woman.
So, I’m at the bottom of the Democrat’s quota food chain, and my wife is next to the bottom.
When I was young and idealistic, I bought into the notion that I ought to vote for social justice, while blacks, women and gays voted for their own self interests. (Somehow, it’s easier to be in favor of social justice when you belong to one of the groups that get the goodies.) No more. I vote for my own self interest, and while the Republicans have some flaws, at least I’m not on the bottom of their food chain.