Hey Democrats and Progressives, why not WHITE MEN?

[Dawgs]

We've got the GOP on the ropes with the support of women, minorities, and the younger generation. Why not go for the one group that will knock them out cold - white men.

Are we consceding this group to the GOP? Do we see them as a lost cause? Do we think they don't relate to the issues of the left? What is it?

Liberal Democrats are better for the economy, peace, the environment, equal rights, national security, and energy. Do ALL white men not care about these issues. Is it really that bad?

My thoughts are that it really is that bad. Many white men, especially over 40, are bigoted, ignorant, war hungry 'jocks'. They think that any talk of peace, equal rights or talk of a clean environment is weak. They think that carrying a gun is strong. They that homosexuals should be picked on.

So, should Democrats use their strengths to go after this VERY LARGE group or should they let them die off until a smarter, more-informed, younger generation grows up and starts voting?

BTW, I'm a heterosexual white male that's over 40.

[Jamastiene]

1. This looks interesting.

[Dawgs]

2. Really? Does it sound bad? n/t

[unblock]

3. ok, and how exactly should we appeal to white men over 40 other than doing what we're doing?

speaking as another white male over 40, i find more than enough appeal in the democratic party because it's the only viable left of center party and generally believes in actually liberty and that government can actually be used to solve problems for the vast majority of people and especially those in the greatest need. in contrast to the agenda of the republican party, which includes raiding the treasury for the benefit of a few overly rich bastards and meddling in the private lives of everyone else.

the republican party keeps their majority among white men over 40 mainly by appealing to their greed and fear and bigotry. other than by appealing to their intelligence, reason, and sensibility, which it seems to me is what we always do, what do you suggest we try differently?

[Dawgs]

9. Wow! Amazing how so many of you miss my point.

I'm not talking to the white men at DU. I'm talking to the party that seems content with ignoring the current situation. Which is, the white male vote is keeping the GOP in power, and unless we find a way to change their vote to Democrats we will continue to be saddled with Republican rule throughout the country.

It's that simple.

I want that fucking party to go away, and after all they have done they are still very popular with those that vote. Many of you may think that everything is fine and we can afford to wait, but I don't. We need to take their power away now.

[toddwv]

22. I have no desire to appeal to the current "white men" who comprise the Republican base.

As a white male myself, I know that this core voting block of the right doesn't want to be in the same tent as anyone who isn't exactly like them.

[unblock]

23. the only thing amazing is that you're ignoring a simple request to propose some solutions.

i explained what the party is doing.
i noted that it's (obviously) enough for you and me to be white male over 40 democrats.
i noted that it's (obvously) not enough for the majority of white males over 40.
i asked for suggestions.

i'm not sure why you think my post talks only about white men at du, nor do i see why you think i'm happy with the level of power the republican party has.

[mazzarro]

4. Why Not White Men Too?

You have essentially hit at the main obstacle to winning this group of people. Their beliefs, in large part, run counter to progressive/liberal ideals and in addition they are aversed to logic as well. So it will be gargantuan task to try to win them over because of the dominance of talk radio by the conservative talking ignoramuses and buffoons that keep feeding fuel to the already ravaging fire of ignorance within the group.
I do think your thought on this is commendable but the problem will be how to go about to make it happen. We will have to put in a lot of thought into it to fashion a way to get this done - as soon too!

[The Magistrate]

5. The Problem, Sir, Is Older White Males, Particularly In Rural And Southern Locales

In this demographic, Republicans hold, and will maintain, a great advantage. Lines that might appeal to them will tend to offend people in cities, women, particularly single women, and people of color, so the question becomes, can you gain more among this hostile demographic than you will lose in friendly demographics, that are the bulk of your reliable support? The answer to this seems on the record to be, probably not. Viewed in bulk, the persons who at present fall into the older white rural or southern male demographic pretty much are a lost cause, and will remain an impediment to any sensible policy or governance so long as they remain.

[Dawgs]

12. Great idea. Let's give up without trying. n/t

[The Magistrate]

18. Not Every Problem Has A Solution, Sir

Energy is finite, and so must be directed on avenues with the greatest potential return.

'Red states' are going to be turned only by capitalizing on demographic changes, and increasing urban voter participation.

[Empowerer]

26. Thank you, Magistrate

You are exactly right.

History and reality tell us that the primary reasons that many in this demographic don't support Democrats and vote against their interests are the Democratic Party's positions race, civil rights and equal justice and its embrace of diverse groups. Thus, the only way to secure their support is to kick those positions and people to the curb, and thereby, go against everything the Party claims to stand for.

In my view, the Party needs to stop chasing around after the handful of angry white men it seems to eager to court yet who will never support the Party as it currently stands. Instead, it should focus its resources on building support in its own backyard among the people who have been loyal and don't need a whole lot of convincing to go out and vote Democratic, but do need some encouragement and proof that the party still has their back.

[Scuba]

6. Stereotypes and generalizations are not useful. There's a lot of white men over 40 in this pic

Madison protests last spring.


<a href="http://imgur.com/zAPcB"><img src="" title="Hosted by imgur.com" alt="" /></a>

[bemildred]

7. +1.

Speaking as an "older white male", we are all in this together, and better start talking about it that way. Sectarian politics is inherently divisive, and should be avoided whenever possible.

[Dawgs]

16. Huh, I'm asking Democrats to inform those that continue to vote against themselves.

How is that being divisive?

[bemildred]

21. It's your question, you answer it. I'm done.

I've known and worked with such people all of my life, and they can get with the program or kiss my ass.

[Dawgs]

14. Are those people republicans?

Because if they are not, then I'm not talking about them.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. As an old, straight, white guy, I'm not really sure how to put this.

I don't need any more "White Guy" equality, reproductive or other privilages. In fact, the way a candidate appeals to me is exactly how the canditate in question treats and addresses the concerns of women, minorities and the LGBT communities.

As an old white guy, in addition to the above, the candidate that wants to protect S.S. and medical care, wants my kids to get a good education and healthcare, the candidate who shows concern and empathy for the least among us, is the one who gets my vote. What, prey tell, should the candidate do to more appeal to the old, white part of me?

[Dawgs]

10. Not talking about you... geez! n/t

[FSogol]

11. I'm sure the way to get their vote is to insult a large group of people

with sophomoric generalizations.

[Dawgs]

13. "I sure the way"???

And, who am I insulting? That "large group" goes nowhere near DU, and they are the reason that women are getting attacked in every state run GOP legislature.

Does DU all of a sudden care about the white male Republican that is destroying this country? Obviously you do.

[FSogol]

15. You added the term "Republican" to the group you are hating on. It didn't appear

in your op. The Democratic party has plenty of 40+ white men on its rolls and when we win, it won't be because we engaged in divisive politics.

"Obviously you do." *Snicker*

[Dawgs]

17. I hope you're joking. My whole OP was about getting white men to vote Democratic.

If they weren't already voting for the GOP then what would be the point of the OP? Wow.

[dmallind]

19. Like this OP, much of the Dem message seems to be tuned intentionally to denigrate them

I don't speak for all white men either of course, and on a board that seems generally to believe that people like Chomsky, Krugman, Zinn, Kucinich and Reich et al can/could do no wrong I hope there are few people stupid enough to think all white men over 40 are the problem.

But relatively speaking they (we) are more of a problem - more likely to vote RW than any other demographic. How can we begin to shift that?

1) Stop framing support for other demographics as an always implicit and frequently explicit attack on white men, as if all white men and only white men are responsible, individually and collectively, for all bigotry and race/gender/minority friction. We can help and support minorities without attacking the (supposed) majority, surely?

2) Political Correctness taken to extremes will alienate the group. No that doesn't mean we have to cheerfully endorse n words or c words in the party platform, but hyperventilating about "girl" being an evil sexist attempt to dehumanize and subjugate females by the privileged patriarchy of potential rapists isn't going to win the votes of those who have used the term innocent of all bad intent for decades. Nor is playing gotcha with claims of "bigoted" deviations from the currently favored alphabet soup of gender and sexuality minorities. Again, we can push for equality for all without making it seem like white men are always outsiders and enemies who should not be allowed to express opinions in common terminology.

3) When you've grown up preached to daily that the country is the paragon of freedom, the bastion of Christianity, and the unchallenged leader in all metrics of good and right, and that it is the white male's bounden duty as the privileged holder of the reins of power to keep it so, much of the message that it is guilty of enormous wrongdoing, lagging behand in basic humanity, and laughably naive theologically, however true, will not win your hearts and minds. No again we don't have to go back to McCarthy, but we can certainly frame policies as ones that improve America, that reflect the spirit of its people, that show the light on the hill can still shine, rather than as ones that get us on the road to eventually matching Belgium in a few decades, or catch us up with Slovakia. Even if they are the same policies.

4) Attacking the millitary even by implication will lose. Instead of "starving the MIC" why should we not "streamline and modernize the world's best armed forces"? Instead of "getting out of Afghanistan" why should we not "leave a free and independent Afghanistan to chart their own future"? Instead of "cutting military spending" why not "rededicate a more agile military to combat the 21st century enemies of small terrorist and insurgent groups"?

5) Keep our damned hands off hobbies and activities completely irrelevant to the problems we say we care about. A guy shooting at paper targets or clay ducks on the weekend should not be subject to 20000+ laws that brand him a felon if he puts a magazine on the "wrong" side of a divided gun bag in the name of reducing a gun murder rate driven to a vast majority by the unintended consequences of drug policies and poverty. Nor should a motorcyclist have to keep stopping at state lines to put on and take off a helmet that may or may not protect only himself. Every law in the country that imposes a restriction on individual activities that are in themselves harmless should be reviewed to see if its goal can be achieved some other way. White men grumble more about restrictions like this than they do about equality measures, or trade regulations, or the like.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

20. Very well said.

[Dawgs]

30. Thanks for the reasoned and thoughtful response.

I'm surprised that so many here thought I was 'attacking' ALL white men over forty, or even saying that they are all the same.

My message, although quickly and poorly expressed, was exactly the opposite of that. I think progressives/Democrats should figure out a way to bring them over to our side, and do it as you suggested - by framing the issues in a way that at least gets them to consider the alternative.

[The Magistrate]

45. A Thorough Conventional Analysis, Sir, Which Does Point Up the Real Problem

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Which is that these people are fundamentally frivolous, without any sound core of judgement, and led by the nose over trifles. Your third element comes the closest to presenting anything of substance, and even it boils down to describing a complete incapacity to outgrow childhood illusions.

Most expressions of support for 'other demographics' are not framed as 'implicit and frequently explicit attack on white men': many white men past a certain age, particularly in rural and southern locales, take them as 'explicit attack on white men' because they understand they do occupy, and feel entitled to occupy, a position of inherent superiority in a caste system of race and gender, which they cling to for solace against other unpleasant and disappointing facts of their lives. So long as they continue to draw much of their sense of self-worth from this caste superiority, it will not be possible for anyone to frame 'support for other demographics' in a way that such people will not take as 'implicit and frequently explicit attack on white men', because by their lights, that is exactly what 'support for other demographics' is, and from their point of view, they are quite accurate in seeing that to be so. It is not, in other words, a problem that can be fixed, at least on the terms stated. You are essentially suggesting that people be sure their complaints concerning being treated as inferiors be couched in terms that will not ruffle the feathers of those who feel themselves superior to them.

Umbrage at 'political correctness' is a longstanding staple; most of us even on the left have our own humorous examples of earnest excess. But the long rightist protest against it is as bogus as it is inane; all it actually is is the ringing proclamation 'Damn it, I'm a jerk, I like being a jerk, I intend to go on being a jerk, fuck you if don't like my being a jerk --- me being a jerk is the height of human Liberty!' People who take up that cry ought to be laughed at, slapped, shamed in whatever manner is most immediately available and appropriate, and the treatment continued till they learn to grow up show some sense.

Now this comment of yours actually does state the problem, and does so very well: "When you've grown up preached to daily that the country is the paragon of freedom, the bastion of Christianity, and the unchallenged leader in all metrics of good and right, and that it is the white male's bounden duty as the privileged holder of the reins of power to keep it so, much of the message that it is guilty of enormous wrongdoing, lagging behand in basic humanity, and laughably naive theologically, however true, will not win your hearts and minds." The problem is that the people we are discussing actually do believe this, and yet to all appearances are fully grown adults, often with grey heads and beards, and a person who can reach adult stature, even an elder's state, and still believe this labors under serious moral and mental deficiencies. They not only live in a state of profound delusion, they require it as an essential prop to their image of themselves and their place in the world. You might as well try and convince a person laboring under paranoiac delusion that the world really is not plotting against him: he knows damned well it is, and takes a certain satisfaction from the prominence this entails, and the best you will manage is to convince him you are an especially oily servant of the great Combine dedicated to his downfall.

No remotely mainstream political figure on the left, certainly no one running for office, really talks of 'starving the MIC'': the stream-lining and improving line you suggest is the one actually employed, not that this makes a tinker's damn worth of difference. Solid majorities of the people in this country, including majorities among Republicans, want the Afghan business brought to a halt, and soon. And again, the line actually being pressed by political figures is exactly the one you suggest, and it does not seem to make a smidgen of difference to the attitudes these people display in a voting booth. All down the line, your fourth point is already being implemented, and with scant apparent success.

The final thing is the most frivolous of all. We will put to one side argument over how harassed by thousands of laws the poor fellow who owns a gun might or might not be. Whatever the burden, it does not seem to have put any crimp in the steady increase in gun sales and possession. But the real gist of the 'gun issue' is absolute hysteria, deliberately fomented by a few organizations on the right. Those who make 'gun rights' their sole, or even a major, criterion of how they will vote, are showing a instinct for the capillary, revealing an inability to give proper weights to matters of state and state policy: lacks which tell strongly against the sense of innate superiority they so often seem to feel their inalienable possession.

[JoePhilly]

24. As a member of the hetero-white-guy-over-40 demographic ... I remind the members of my cohort ...

particularly those who are republican ...

"The DOW is up about 5000 points since Obama became President." It collapsed under Bush. Fell all the way to 6500. And Obama stopped the collapse, and the DOW is now back above 12,000, and hovering around 13,000.

Why would we go back to the Bush policies that caused the collapse?

Then I point out that OBL is DEAD. Bush didn't get him. Obama did.

DOW is UP, GM is Alive, OBL is Dead, Romney is Toast.

They have no response.

[Wait Wut]

39. And this...

...is how you open the lines of communication.

I know several men that fit the description and once you give them something to appreciate, they listen. Granted, the Republican men I know are the kindest and most intelligent forms of Rep., but there is hope. I also think the "over 40" is being too harsh. I'd raise it another 10 years to over 50.

The secret is: don't make the discussion into an argument. A friendly debate and considerate back and forth communication works. If the "opposition" insists on taking it down a level, you aren't going to get anywhere anyway.

[JoePhilly]

43. YUP ... I also find that their wives lean democratic, if not actually being dems.

And yes ... don't argue.

We recently did this over dinner. Some good friends, a few GOP men, some good debate.

I found that a few of them tried to use some of the arguments that come from Obama's left, which I found interesting.

So for instance, one of them said "But aren't Democrats angry at Obama for extending the Bush tax cuts?" ... the response ... "Sure, but they also know that the GOP was holding the Middle Class hostage".

[upaloopa]

25. No voter group is homogeneous.

Some white men vote for Democrats some vote for Republicans. Some are racists and some are not. Some treat women badly some don't.

But as a group, white men are to most picked on group of voters by this board. I never saw such blatant racism as there is here at DU against white men.

[Dawgs]

32. Are you saying I'm racist against white men? n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Could you link an example? I'd be interested to know why you feel white men are treated.....

unfairly, or "picked on by this board". I'm really interested, because I certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of such a charge.

[qwlauren35]

27. I wish you all the best.

I understand what is being said, and it makes sense to me. HOWEVER, I'd like to point out something to you. Obama is not going after the black vote by doing anything special for our community other than having allocated some funding for historically black colleges and universities. The message of his campaign is "what I do for the nation benefits our people".

This angers some black folks, they want to be wooed. They say that it is not enough to have a black president, if he is not a president who goes out of his way to make some dents in the issues that plague black people.

I see both sides. It would be nice if I could point to some things that Obama has done and say "THERE! He did that for US." On the other hand, I respect the fact that what he has fought for benefitted our community.

So, white men - you're not the only group that Obama isn't going specifically after. Instead, you'll find that his efforts to extend unemployment benefits, his efforts to secure health care for those who have declining health but can't afford insurance, his decision to bail out the auto industry, his support for retraining - those things were aimed at the general populace, and as such, to older white males.

Note, that I don't speak for DU. I know that this place forgets how many older white males are staunch Democrats, and progressive to boot. But our president - he is very "equal opportunity". He tries to do what is best for Americans, and it includes 99% of us!

Hope you see where I'm coming from. Your demographic has not been forgotten. There is just no easy way to go after you, if not to go after all of us at once.

[Dawgs]

37. I agree with most of you are saying, but my post has nothing to do with Obama.

I meant to speak to everyone on the left. And, it's not about the Democrats 'doing something' for white men.

It's about educating them on what has already been done for them, and not specifically what President Obama has done.

[Arkana]

28. Cause we're already pandered to enough

and I say that as a privileged 27-year-old white dude.

[Dawgs]

33. "Pandered to"? Not sure that was what I was suggesting. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. What do you think the "we got bin Laden, Romney wouldn't have" adverts are for?

How else do you increase your vote among the "bigoted, ignorant, war hungry 'jocks'" other than with "we killed the bastard who did 9/11"?

[Dawgs]

36. It's a start. n/t

[mathematic]

31. You want to win over men?

Start by ditching the notion that athleticism and sports are antithetical to positive citizenship. Believe it or not, when the rank and file denounce jocks as the problem this doesn't make the party very appealing.

"A sound mind and a sound body" -Thales, father of western philosophy

[Dawgs]

35. WTF! I think my definition of 'jock' (in this context) is quite a bit different than yours.

Have no problem with athleticism and sports. As a matter of fact, I probably watch 10 times as much as any one person should.

Go Dawgs!! (UGA)
Go Braves!! (Atlanta)
Go Tigers!! (Detroit)
Go Lions!!
Go Thrashers, before they left.

[mathematic]

38. That's good. I think you should be able to appreciate this point.

Imagine if somebody subtly (or not so subtly) insulted your ability to make reasoned, informed decisions on matters of policy because of your interest in sports. Ridiculous, right? The difference between Republicans and Democrats have nothing do with that. And yet, when you invoke the jock stereotype that's what you're doing. It doesn't matter that it's just the stereotype of jocks. That's enough to alienate actual jocks.

So you like sports. So you have a hyper-masculine gender identity. So what does this have to do with the ideal type of fiscal response to an economic crisis? Nothing! Don't conflate the two, not even as a metaphorical shortcut.

There's a reason why they always make a big deal about Obama's basketball games. It's a way to counteract the perception that democrats are anti-jock.


On edit: Oh yeah, I almost forgot... Let's Go Mets!

[Dawgs]

41. Your point is fine if I was suggesting we use the jock stereotype for any purpose.

But, I'm not. I was using the 'jock' term to explain why many Republican men are Republicans, period.

[Drunken Irishman]

47. We have a jock president and he's still pretty much trashed by white men.

[mathematic]

48. Jock Presidents, Senators, etc are pretty common

Heck, Bill Bradley is in the Basketball Hall of Fame!

Politicians don't trash jocks. They try to appeal to them. I'm talking about how rank and file democrats can avoid making the democratic party less appealing to independent or switchable republican men. These people interact with democrats in many places. They're coworkers, neighbors, people in the community, and, yes, even on the internet at sites like this one. Every slam against jocks, athleticism, or sports needlessly turns away these people. "Needlessly" because there is nothing inherently republican OR democratic about these interests. For example, it's not like slamming the anti-science crowd. If you're anti-science you're going to find a lot more to agree with in the republican party than the democratic party.

[polichick]

34. Tagline for the ad: "WELCOME, SMART WHITE MEN"...

It would be funny to watch heads explode on the egomaniacal right!

[independentpiney]

40. Why would you want to appeal to ignorant bigoted war-loving ex-jocks?

Of course it probably makes perfect sense, but being a white 50+ male with rural southern roots I must be far too ignorant to understand.

[Dawgs]

42. Are you a Republican?

Because if you're not then I wasn't talking about you. This is DEMOCRATIC underground right?

[Bake]

44. This white man over 40 (ahem) proudly supports President Obama!

Bake

[LongTomH]

49. As this cohort sees their jobs and careers outsourced, downsized, rightsized and otherwise....

...they are bound to become angrier and angrier. If Progressive Democrats can speak to this anger, they will reach these men.

[scheming daemons]

50. I am white, 45, heterosexual, and upper middle class

But I have a brain and a heart.... so i'm a liberal and very pro Obama.