On Demand
WNYC's Coverage of the Republican National Convention
Live performances in Soundcheck's studios
Studio 360: Patti LuPone on playing Mama Rose
Selected Shorts featuring "The Trouble of Marcie Flint," by John Cheever
Radio Rookies: Brooklyn Broadcast Workshop
On the Media: Surviving Convention Coverage
Street Shots Challenge
The Leonard Lopate Show
Neglected Voters: White Men
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
In the 1960s, the Republican party won a key demographic: white male voters. Now David Paul Kuhn of The Politico says that the Democratic party is luring many of those voters back. His new book is The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.
- About This Program »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Guest Hosts »
- Guest Picks »
- Latest Show »
- Tapes & Transcripts »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date. Subscribe to the Podcast
Shop at Amazon!
Leonard Lopate Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
How much did the drift away from the populist economics by the Democrats in the 1990s (NAFTA) and Tony Kuello's luring in corporate donors in the 1970s do to aleinate working class whites?
And, where do the working class white men stand on immigration?
Huh? What exactly are you saying when you state that we are leaving white men behind because our candidates are a white woman and a black man? Does this say more about the Democratic Party or white men?
The latter, I would strongly suggest.
as a white male liberal, I say it's all too damn bad. it's the Democrats fault that middle and lower class white man are too dumb to realize their won economic interests? Democrats are supposed to be sorry for not catering to racism , and sexism and war mongering?? although let's be honest, both parties are war mongers and very pro police and heavy sentencing...
this is a problem of perception and not the fault of the dems...white guys apparently think they are all about to hit it rich and need those tax cuts. whose fault is that? the reality is that demographic trends favor the Dems. maybe this guy should tell us why Republicans shouldn't be apologizing for being the party of white men and no one else. duh.
But aren't most republicans upper class white elites? How come they are able to grab the working class whites?
What about John Edwards?
Fact check. The injection of special forces and intelligence operatives into Vietnam started under Eisenhower; not Kennedy.
I did a double take, mentally, when the guest said of John Kerry's acceptance speech line, "reporting for duty," that "The lady doth protest too much."
Huh? Didn't make sense, in context. Until I realized it was exactly what the speaker intended--that it be a slam a Kerry's masculinity.
Most speakers, to make a point about Kerry overdoing his military background, I think, would have said "The candidate doth protest too much," but this speaker wanted to emphasize the insult and the wussiness of Dem male candidates (it's been a longtime MCM theme now: Republicans are manly men and Dems are, well, not so manly men, like that Breck Girl, ya know?).
Either the speaker has inculcated this into his thinking so thoroughly he doesn't realize what he said--or he deliberately said it. Either way, it does not serve our national discourse well.
Seriously? As a woman of color who has worked for the Democratic Party, I think his assertion that white men are disenfranchised is absolutely insane. Why are you giving this guy air time?
How was Reagan a manly man when in World War 2 he served in the USA?? Carter was a captain of a submarine?
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney where draft dodgers?
George H.W. Bush was a war hero, and lost to Clinton.
what does Kuhn make of Jack Nicholson's endorsement of Hillary, in which he said: "she's the best man for the job."
White working class men fled the Democratic Party in the late 1960s, 1970s & 1980s largely because of the explosion of crime & violence in their own & nearby communities. White flight generally & working class white men particularly was driven mostly by fear of the surrounding social collapse of law & order. My community, white Italian-American working class, fled the Bronx for the relative safety of Westchester, Nassau or Northern New Jersey & left the Democratic Party in droves largely because they felt that the Democrats who controlled New York City for generations were unwilling or unable to deliver on the FIRST responsibility of government - law & order, public safety. Bill Clinton was the first national Democrat to recognize that & take the unpopular position (amongst Liberal Democrats) that Democrats needed to address those concerns & become the party of public safety as well as social justice, which explains his success. Public safety was NOT the only issue driving this flight, but the urban riots & exploding crime rates of the 1960s & 1970s were a VERY major factor ripping the white working class from the Democratic fold.
The president could have done better? Snicker Snicker?
References to Sex and the City?
This is what passes for political insight and intelligent discourse?
This kid is so up his own a** that I'm beginning to bfeel sick.
1. white middle & working class men are as much a victim of the "free market" as women [money isn't free, last time i counted..]. Corporate America took advantage of the women's movement to fire higher priced male workers and replace them with women.
My problem with this: same children, same healthcare needs, and men and women not coming together on that to make the republicans' account for their 'it's all about the children' crap.
2. i told a friend of mine who thought we should just 'get behind the president' in the war on terrorism, after all the economic arguments failed to bridge our disagreement, that she had to stop picking her political leaders like she used to pick her ex-boyfriends, for all the wrong reasons.
3. the idea that i'd vote for a guy for president because i'd want to have a beer with him - concerning W.> why would i want to have a beer with a recovering alcoholic?
To poster #12: I was thinking the same thing! How inappropriate (and not funny)!
The analysis of the image of masculinity and voting patterns is fascinating, but here's a point that Mr. Kuhn seems to overlook. The great irony is that the quintessential effete Democratic liberal--George McGovern--was, in fact, a decorated fighter pilot in World War II. The archetype conservative, Ronald Reagan, spend the war on the backlots of Hollywood. You see the same pattern with John Kerry vs. George W. Bush: a war hero vs. a draft evader (and, as well, a faux cowboy upper-class WASP. In fact, it's striking how many of the "manly" right-wing tough guys--Cheney being the prime example--did all they could to avoid combat. How does that jibe with the masculine personna?
This man/boy(?) obviously doesn't understand the core of the democratic party. This book is just another republican view of the democratic party. Ugh.
Did David Paul Kuhn actually say that he was disappointed in Bill Clinton's daliances because "he was president and could have done a lot better????" That discredits him entirely to me. He's completely equating worth for a male as a being his power and worth for a woman as being her level of attractiveness. I'm guessing his book is probably written out of his own insecurity then. Maybe he's short or has a small penis, but someone so unevolved doesn't deserve a voice.
Can someone just explain to me how exactly a majority can be seen as neglected when the entire political system is set up to speak to their primary interests??
Simply because the media gives airtime to candidates courting minority segments does not mean that those very same candidates aren't directly speaking to their base of white male voters the rest of the time. I think the mistake is made in assuming that the majority of white males will vote similarly - which is the same mistake made when assuming that any other group of people will vote similarly.
Humorous aside here....McGovern was a BOMBER pilot (B-29s I think), NOT a fighter pilot.....tho indeed, (unlike the macho Nixon who managed to so successfully trash him as a peacnik, pacifist, anti-warrior who could not be trusted with the nation's defense), a true war hero all the same.
No 18.......How "liberal"-minded are WE today......"someone so unevolved doesn't deserve a voice"?????. So who gets to decide who amongst us "deserves a voice" (as opposed to who we wish to listen to, which is obviously everyone's right to be as closed-minded as they wish). Gulag here come.....
liberals on here trying to muzzle their opponents again---how very liberal...lol
Obama is 50% white male
so 50% of him is a non-victim privleliged
macho oppressor class who we should be opposing ---
oh dear...
We have a one party political system in this country - The Business Party.
It has two wings - Democrat and Republican.
They differences are superficial the vast majority of the time. Ask any woman why they're supporting Clinton and you get gibberish, or worse a campaign slogan they read off a bumper sticker as a response. The same is true for Obama. And Mcaine's straight talk express? What a sad joke.
If you support a candidate based on his "qualities" you're an idiot. Although I don't totally blame you because we have a press that reports on nothing but image qualities and very little on anything of substance. To try and find out what a candidate would actually do once in office on any issue that matters to you would involve doing your own research project.
And about white flight - if you left your community because you feared crime, then good for you. If you left because too many black and brown people were moving in, then you're a bigot and deserve the label. It's a shame the two concepts are deeply connected in most people's mind that they can't separate them.
relax. sarah. I think he meant the Clinton line as a joke. why can't we take jokes? In his book he is very critical of Bush for example for exactly that, inferring he is compensating. I was skeptical of this book. but i left it with the opposite view as you. only someone that secure would say what he does. I think too many in my party, too many liberal men, are not secure enough to be strong and critical of the activist base. Also, I the "lady protests to much" was not a mark against Kerry's masculinity. Lady is a line from Shakespeare. You'all need to read more.
let me say, for the record, sarah, i know him. an ex. and he's tall and quite well, well i will leave it at that. but that was a stupid joke ann. he does that sometimes.
So I disagree with you there. I think he should have not said it because it detracts from his argument. and i'll email him...
some of these responses are sooo cliche. is this what my fellow wnycers are reduced to? he is not saying that white men are disenfranchised. he is pointing out the fact of history that they left our party and that left us without a majority. that happened. far more men left than women. what is it so unpopular among some democrats to face facts like this? my dad and uncle are exactly this trend its exactly but i would guess, its more trend you would only see in staten island, here (kidding). seriously, the anger in some of these responses that exhibits what he is talking about. i'm a white guy who still votes for Dems. (i live here!). I am more interested in RCs point that republicans are so more often upper class white elites and they get these voters or have. kuhn's theory is that its simply that americans vote on far more than economic class. on another point, demographic trends do not really favor us for a long time. he points out that white men are about 5 times larger portion of the electorate than men and women Latinos... all he is saying is look at reaching out to those voters we lost and he argues it can be done without losing those voters that define our party... i agree
Staten island swipes, now who is being cliche... I just listened to this post. Does he talk about the book "the Real Majority" in his book? Anyone know? I'm a poli sci major and it sounds like what he wrote about is the outcome of that book... I recommend it to those who want to really get into white flight from liberals - at a level deeper than the usual superficial racial politics (which kuhn seems to want to recognize but understand the other issues as well). I think the problem is that we often only think that it was civil rights. If that's true, then I think he's right to ask why did this occur in 1980 and not permanently in 1948 or 1968? That being said, I'll read it and see.
the McGovern is true! But what killed McGovern is that he was seen as a dove giving in to hippies. But he was also right on the issues! That's what's so frustrating. Also, Vietnam is on Trumen a well.
This idea that Democrats lost these men because they "are supposed to be sorry for not catering to racism , and sexism and war mongering" is exactly the problem with the Left. You guys presume the worst about white men and presume the best about everyone else. Kuhn's book clearly demonstrates with polling data (or do ideologues have no use for evidence?) that it was race in places like Alabama. But here in the 1970s or Detroit it was also issues from crime to the failures later to stand against issues like NAFTA, to believe it or not real mistakes made by becoming knee-jerk anti war instead of against what Kuhn calls "bad war."
Hi all,
I am a white male and former democrat. I have not changed my beliefs but one word can explain why I did vote democrat. Guilt. It is what the democrats try to get people to vote for them. If you work 80 hour weeks to make a business that grosses 200k providing 2 other employee jobs and then people tell you that you were givin everything because you were white. (I haven't taken a vacation or a day off in 2 years) My income is $45,000 from my growing business, which I guess makes me rich because I own a business. Instead of blaming white men that we are too stupid to vote for our self interest maybe the party should look at itself. I voted for Clinton in 96 but Bush in 2000 and 04.
I do have a question as many liberals think Bush is dumb. How could this bumbling idiot beat two superior intellectuals in 2000 and 04.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode