Gender Gap in 2004

[Nym90]

I agree with much of what you say in principle, Dazzleman, about the fundamental differences between men and women. Women are more likely to seek protection, while the concept of rugged individualism appeals to men. Women are thus much more likely to be economically liberal, and also to be compassionate towards others. Both genders have their "role" that they are more naturally suited for. That's not to say that we should discriminate against people who don't fit into their natural "role" very well for whatever reason; but it's not wrong to acknowledge that men and women tend to be better at some things.

I think you overstate the significance of groups like NOW, however. I don't personally see them as a large force within the party.

I also disagree that Republican policies are cerebral and Democratic ones are emotional. I've always thought it was the opposite, actually. On issues like taxes, government spending, etc. the easy, emotional answer is "Cut taxes, it's my money, I deserve to keep it", and certainly that appeals to the selfish side of people (because people want something for nothing, as you say; and it goes both ways, if you don't want to pay taxes but do want to benefit from government services, and everyone benefits from them everyday even if they don't realize it, that's getting something for nothing, as well; it's not just women who are susceptible to this), while the logic and reason behind taxes and spending usually takes longer to explain; you have to get into the reasons why the existence of government enables you to earn a lot more money than you otherwise would if there was no government, so the whole "it's MY money" argument is not really true, as well as the fact that government can do things which individuals and corporations can't do on their own, or that wouldn't be profitable for them to do. I think conservative positions actually are a lot easier to explain on many issues because they do appeal to people more emotionally than liberal ones do.

It's easy to get angry about taxes, because the negative effects of them are more obvious and more direct, while the benefits that the tax money ultimately provides to people are more indirect, and less obvious, and thus require more thought and reason to be able to see clearly. That's not to say that logical, rational people can't still think that they are not getting a good deal for the tax money, but I think a lot of people who don't really think about the issue don't see the benefits.

[Nym90]

Eric, you're right that there are a lot of people who don't want to pay for the services they get from government. I'm not one of those people who thinks that all taxes are wrong, while at the same time driving on government-funded roads and relying on government-funded services like police and fire protection.

When it comes to economics and foreign policy, I think the Democratic position is easier to explain than the Republican one. I agree with you that on taxes, the Republican position is easier to explain.

On economics, the Republican position is, essentially, that it is necessary to favor the rich at times, and permit a certain level of economic inequality, because the alternative is that society as a whole gets dragged down to a lower level economically. While it may sound and feel good to tax the rich heavily, the Republican position is that this makes the economy worse for everybody. So in this case, the Democratic policy appeals more to the emotions of the have-nots or relative have-nots.

On foreign policy, the Republican position is that we must make sacrifices, sometimes in lives, to prevent greater loss of life and conflict further down the road. The Democratic policy is more short-sighted - peace at any price, at least for now. This has more emotional appeal because the price of this policy won't be apparent until into the future.

No one party has all the right answers. The best policy would be some mix of the policies advocated by both parties, in my opinion. But I do believe that in general, men are more understanding of the need to stick up for yourself, or else you will suffer from increasing aggression. This is something that women usually have to learn, while men know it instinctively, and that explains a lot of the different approaches of men and women toward foreign policy.

Good analysis.

It's also worth noting, of course, that logic is not necessarily better than emotion. As you say, some combination of the two is good, but we certainly can't deny the importance of emotion to us as humans. While I would agree that men tend to be more logical than women, and women tend to be more emotional than men, that certainly doesn't make men's way of thinking about things better. I know you didn't say that it did, but I just wanted to point that out.

So yes, a big part of the gender gap is due to economics, because women naturally tend to prefer the idea of a protective government, while men have been conditioned to not seek help.

I still disagree that the Democrats are as liberal overall as you think they are, and likewise I probably think the Republicans are more conservative overall than you. The Democratic platform certainly didn't support "peace at any price". I haven't seen poll numbers, but I highly doubt whether a majority of Democrats want us to withdrawal from Iraq now, which is what it seems that you are portraying as the Democratic position.

The reality on foreign policy, I think, is that both parties tend to support military interventions by Presidents of their own party, and oppose them by Presidents of the opposite party. This might appear to be only petty politics (and certainly for some people, it is), but I think this goes to the heart of what we want in a military leader, which is first and foremost, someone that we can trust to lead our country. So if you trust a person's positions on other issues, and their character, you trust them to put the good of the country first in foreign policy, as well. I've admitted myself that while I support the overall goals of the Iraq war, I don't support the way it was handled, and a large part of the reason for my opposition is that I don't trust the President's motives; I don't think that if the interests of America and of the military-industrial complex and big business are at odds with each other, that he'll put America first. I don't think that's an unreasonable position; many Republicans on domestic issues seemed to think this about Clinton, as well ("Sure, what Clinton says sounds good, but he's a liar and a scumbag, so he must be doing it only for political advantage, not because he cares about America").

The conflicting perceptions that we have are understandable, considering that you live in a relatively libreal area, and thus both parties, locally, are probably more liberal than the national versions. Likewise, I don't think that NOW and the NAACP are great forces within the Democratic party, in large part probably due to the fact that they are fairly nonexistent in my local politics.

[Nym90]

Eric, I disagree with you that NOW and the NAACP are not large forces in the national Democratic party. I think it would be fair to say that they have a stranglehold on the Democratic party.

Connecticut is actually a pretty moderate state, far less liberal than New York or Massachusetts. Still, our Democratic party is certainly more liberal than the local southern or even midwestern versions of the party. Much of my perception of the Democratic party comes from NY City Democrats, to which I am exposed on a regular basis. These are a particularly noxious breed.

Connecticut Republicans are also more liberal than the national version, and I am fairly comfortable with that. I would say that I am more conservative in general than the Connecticut party, but probably a little more liberal than the national party.

But just as it would be misleading to think that the Connecticut Republicans are indicative of the national party, it is also misleading to equate the Democratic party of a socially conservative area of Michigan with the national party.

What you say about people supporting military interventions by presidents of their own party is true, but regrettable. Politics should stop at the water's edge, but it's not that simple today, and probably never really was. Still, watching the Democrats, it often seems that they would rather see President Bush fail than see something good happen for America. I think that's a shame, and I don't think that Pres. Clinton got that type of treatment from Republicans on international affairs. Domestic affairs, yes, but not international affairs.

As I said, it's not just politics, though for some people, it is. But I think there really is something to the concept of trusting someone to put the nation's interests first. For some people, it's just a cover for partisanship, but the concept of needing to trust a leader to support them taking us into battle is something that isn't totally without merit.

I agree that anyone who wishes that things go badly in Iraq just to hurt Bush and the Republicans politically is despicable. I certainly hope that I am completely wrong, and that Iraq becomes a fully functional, flourishing democracy with relatively minimal loss of lives or expense.