I just heard Will Marshall, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute deliver a message regarding the following.
The 2004 election revealed a striking gap in the political leanings of people who are married with children: They favored the Republican, President George W. Bush, over the Democrat, Sen. John Kerry, by nearly 20 percentage points -- 59 percent to 40 percent. This married parent gap must now take its place in the popular political lexicon alongside previously established voter gaps such as the gender gap (in which women generally lean Democratic and men lean Republican) and the race gap (in which minorities lean heavily Democratic and whites lean heavily Republican).
It was not always like this. Democrats were successful in competing for married parents in the very recent past. Bill Clinton only narrowly lost them in 1992, and then narrowly won them in 1996. Bush opened up a 15-point married parent gap over Al Gore in the 2000 election (winning the group 56 percent to 41 percent). But Clinton's success shows that Democrats should be able to compete for married parents again in the future -- or even win them.
Many Democrats have come to realize in the aftermath of their defeat last November that they must strike out beyond their traditional base of support if they want to start winning national elections again. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), for example, has begun to appeal to pro-life voters. And newly elected Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean has pledged to reach out to evangelical Christians.
But Democrats will not do better with married parents until they recognize one simple truth: Parents have a beef with popular culture. As they see it, the culture is getting ever more violent, materialistic, and misogynistic, and they are losing their ability to protect their kids from morally corrosive images and messages. To be credible, Democrats must acknowledge the legitimacy of parents' beef and make it unmistakably clear that they are on parents' side.
Notice, there is nothing here about believing in what you're saying, but merely acknowledging the other side. If I don't buy into your beliefs, I can acknowledge all I want but it doesn't really put me on your side. This is more of the "I'm ok you're ok" bullcrap!
Howard Dean can reach out all he wants but as long as he advocates positions that are anathema to my beliefs we are at an impasse politically. For heaven's sake believe in something for its eternal value, not for how many votes it will get you!
3 comments:
Good post, Bob. I think that once people become married and have children, it is natural to care more about security and more about making other's accountable for their actions.
Another thing, parents have to deal with whining all day long, why would they want their politicians to be whiners too? (Howard Dean, are you listening?)
;)
I agree with Jody. Good post, Bob. I would, however, like to hear your thoughts about why there was such a dramatic swing in votes.
I think that part of the reason was Bill Clinton himself. It sounds like the "married with children" crowd was on the fence in '92 and Clinton charisma won some converts in '96. It was in Clinton's second term that all the past Clinton "indiscretions" began to really build steam. People who were willing to forgive some past minor problems (and vote for him in '96) suddenly had their trust shattered with the whole Monica Lewinsky and lying under oath thing. This caused a dramatic backlash among independent “married with children” voters. This backlash is so strong that I feel the DNC will have a hard time making a turn around anytime in the near future.
Personally, I also feel that this particular force has been mislabeled by Democrats as a "fundamentalist Christian" thing. They are only listening to the fundamentalist groups who are screaming “I told you so,” and assuming that the swing voters fall into that category. They aren’t listening to the other voters who were willing to allow a president to be human but did not like the idea of a president who lied. The fundamentalist vote may be a component of the backlash but it is not large enough to account for the entire difference. The Democrats also do not realize that this fundamentalist label offends many of the independents that made the switch, thereby alienating that particular vote even further. Of course, I have no statistics to support this theory but I have written on my own blog how I was a registered Independent until 1999 when I registered as a Republican. I can easily say that it was Bill Clinton that caused my switch.
I agree with you, varepublican, the liberals want to write everything off to a fundamentalist Christian thing because it makes them feel superior and it is easier to denigrate someone if you can label them as a backward, ignorant and superstitous.
However, the backlash is coming from well educated, articulate people of integrity who do believe in a moral high road.
Post a Comment