This morning, the Los Angeles Times ran a story entitled "For 2004, Bush Has Strength in the White Male Numbers", detailing the overwhelming strength that Bush has in his biggest demographic:
In an election season heavily shaped by terrorism and national security, several recent polls suggest Bush could dominate white male voters as thoroughly as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did during their three successive presidential victories in the 1980s.
White men reliably tilt Republican because of two main factors (I'm hypothesizing here) and neither of them have to do with terrorism or national security (just look at the latest poll on national priorities): one is overt, the other is more subtle.
The first, and possibly most important factor, is that of jobs. An enormous bloc of white male voters have either strong positions in business or are small business owners themselves.
Why is it that Democrats haven't been picking up these voters, when the Republicans are only interested in massive corporations, which more often than not force small businesses into bankruptcy? Because Democrats haven't phrased the debate correctly. Instead of being "anti-huge corporation" we should be "pro-market".
What do I mean when I make this distinction? Well, as anyone who follows professional sports knows, every game needs some ground rules. These rules can make everyone more competitive and give everyone a shot of winning. Baseball seems to be losing it's appeal because the Yankees have such an overwhelming payroll (just like massive corporations have an overwhelming advantage in capital) that they can buy up whoever they want. That's a perfect analogy (I think) to phrasing this debate. For too long we have let the Republicans frame themselves as the 'pro-market' party while not making the distinction between being 'pro-market' and 'pro-corporation'. While corporations do provide valuble services, monopolies endanger both the market and our democracy.
If we can phrase this debate properly, we may be able to crack open the fiscally conservative, socially moderate white male bloc.
But there's another issue that's keeping white business-oriented men from voting Democratic. One that you won't see on any poll.
That's race.
And I don't just mean how many black kids are at your kid's schools. I mean the Southern Strategy that the GOP has been using for over three decades. The GOP has been convincing white voters in the South (and to a lesser extent across the country) that minorities are out to take the jobs of decent, law-abiding, white, "silent majority" types. Furthermore, the Republicans have been tarring Democrats as the party of special rights for minorities and not equal rights for all.
How do I propose to counter this strategy? Well, this is an extremely radical and risky idea, but here's my two cents for the Democrats on this front:
Completely revamp affirmative action. Make it based on income, not race.
Dean suggested this back in an interview in 1995. He's backed away from it at the moment, but I believe it's a good idea. Here's why. The main argument for affirmative action based on race is that minorities are disproportionately poor. Well, if affirmative action were remade into based on income, those poor minorities would still get benefits. But it would also open the doors to those who are just as poor as minorities but white.
People who are poor don't vote as often as the affluent. Suggesting that affirmative action be open to all who can't afford to go to a good school can help up that turnout and send it to the Dems.
Those are my two suggestions for helping win over some white men, and I think both are very good policy ideas regardless of the politics.