Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[angus]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

I never know what to make of this crap.  Is Balz such a moron?  Or does he ameliorate his writing just to keep pace (or lack thereof) with his ever less independently-thinking readership.  I don't know which is worse.

Simply put, most of us want homosexuals to have the same rights as everyone else.  And most of us straight guys would recoil in horror at the thought of some impoverished 17-year-old bimbo we knocked up not being able to safely and legally terminate the unwanted pregnancy.  Etc.  Etc.  But, as much as it astonishes me, the democrats have managed to mangle and bungle these issues consistently for the past 30 years.  I hate to submit to the profoundly inconsiderate view that these "wedge" issues really are thought more important than the real issues:  jobs, sovereignty, and general economic concerns.  But damn.  The republicans have managed to play all the cards right.  If Nixon had asked me in 1968 whether to go ahead with his so-called Southern Strategy, I'd have said, "man, you're nuts for even considering it.  No way."  Shows how little I know.

I still contend that in the long run these "cultural" issues favor the Democrats, not because they're intelligent or shrewd enough to know how to play them right.  Obviously they are not.  And informed voters vote with their pocketbooks anyway, not over these trivialities.  But just as obviously, in the short run they do favor the GOP.  I still think it's sleazy to pit white religious nuts against black religious nuts, etc.  But such tactics seem so socially acceptable nowadays that even fairly respectable writers like Dan Balz won't call either party on them.

In short, I agree with his conclusions, but I profoundly disagree with the arguments he uses to get there.  Yes, the Dems will continue to lose in the short run, mostly due to their narrow-mindedness and their attitude that anyone who disagrees with them must either be insane or evil.  But in the long run, unless the GOP faces up to the fact that it's selling out its true base, the small government types, it's bound to become a disaffected, ineffective third party.  A distant third. 

[angus]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

[angus]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

okay, maybe I was.  A couple of points.  I do agree with the current GOP position completely on the judiciary.  I'd much rather have a constructionist with whom I disagree than an activist with whom I agree.  This is a big reason for supporting Bush.  But this also exemplifies the case in point.  For example, there can be such a thing as Pro-Business judicial activism.  Activist judges don't always have to be of the Wealth Redistribution sort.  But it was the Right that seized upon that term first.  And wisely so.  And it stuck, and is usually associated with the Left. 

As for the polls, you have to imagine that someone's always going to trot out poll numbers as though they are gospel.  As though they are Kelvin temperatures.  Vorlon can talk about this, and often does, but such poll numbers are only as good as the weakest link in the chain of events leading up to them, and the links are weak indeed.  Leading up to the 2004 general election I often posted that there's only one poll that matters, and that one occurs on November 2.  And, regardless of Gallup or anything else, I was pretty confident Bush would be reelected, which is why I invested as I did.  If I'd though otherwise I'd have put my money elsewhere.  I'm certain if you ask the question, "Are homosexual American citizens subject to the same duties and priveleges, under the federal constitutional system of law, that heterosexual citizens are?" you'd get overwhelmingly "YES"  But if you ask, "Should two rug-munching dykes have the right to marry and adopt an otherwise straight innocent child and screw her mind up so far beyond redemption that she'll grow up to be a man-hating bulldyke with no hope of attracting a decent man?" you'd get an overwhelming "NO" response.  So don't give me that "Well, I got it from Gallup so it must be gospel" bullsh**t, okay?  let's all agree not to insult one another's intelligence that way.

Still, my only point here is that Balz probably understands the whole situation better than he lets on.  It's just a goddamned shame that he has to ameliorate his writing that way for it to be understood.  And we let it.  For example, how many people can tell you what last quarter's economic growth/decline was?  How many people can tell you the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq today?  Not too many?  Well, ask how many people can tell you the name of an 18-year-old rich white girl from alabama who's gone missing in Aruba.  Or how many can tell you about the nasty things Le President de France said about the Brits recently?  And, now, really, which is more important.  And yes, the GOP knows how to play this sensationalism better than the dems and take our minds off of real and pressing issues when necessary to win elections.  And, given how intolerant the Dems have become, it's difficult for centrists like myself to sympathize with their frustration and their plight.  That's really my only point here.

[angus]

Gustaf,
I totally disagree with just about everything you wrote.  but that's not unusual.  Look, the Dems would like to say, "I don't give a flying sh**t whether two men get married."  Which is a damned fine position, and one that will eventually win the day.  But instead, they end up letting Republicans define their position for them, so what the voters really hear is, "Democrats are going to burn your house down."

This is essentially their problem.  Deep down their problem is intolerance and ignorance and obstinancy, but not their essential underlying position. 

Either way, it doesn't matter, since right now the party that is more nationalistic will win the day in our current climate of War and Paranoia.  And that happens to be the republicans.  When and if we ever get over our dependence of foreign oil and the particular predicaments that it gets us into, then there will be a level playing field.  What you, and others, fail to recognize is that parties evolve.  Who's to say which party will be more gay friendly or environment friendly by then?  You seriously underestimate the constantly changing nature of these parties.  there is only one characteristic that constantly defines the GOP since its first national convention in 1856, and that's nationalism.  And right now, nationalism sells.  Even to me it does.  Learn it.

[angus]

perhaps.  I often misread posts in haste. 

well, in any case they don't need an apologist, and they most certainly don't need to be advise to adopt the social positions of the republicans.  look, the bottom line here is that we're okay economically.  people work.  there's no depression.  Sure, we're in what economists call the end of the first trimester of a secular bear market.  You've no doubt noticed that your mutual funds are getting maybe 7% (if you're wise!) and not the 15-25% you were getting in the 90s.  But then the 90s were special.  Cold war over.  New weird yet-to-be-defined Terror War not yet begun.  The Dems mistook this for some sort of sign that they should shift far rightward under Clinton and move forward.  Even to the point of choosing that major league embarassment Howard Dean (a right-wing Democrat, like Clinton, but unlike Clinton, a huge gaffer with no personal saving graces.)

The last thing they need is to copy the GOP.  In fact, subtle attempts at copying anything from the GOP will only worsen their plight.  This they fail to recognize.  What the GOP does works well for them.  Good.  Fine.  It will never work well for the democrats.  They need to have enough balls to stop with the nuance crap (Rumsfeld:  "We don't do nuance") and just define themselves.  Maybe that's what Gustav was going for.  But the post was so nuanced it was difficult to tell.

In either case, I wish both parties would stop talking about sh**t like gay marriage, abortion, and other triviality that really doesn't affect my life personally and get on with the important economic matters we pay the bastards to debate!

[angus]

Let me be more succinct.  Know what percent of the population is gay?  about ten.  maybe.  Know what percent of the US population is even capable of getting pregnant at any given moment?  about 19.  if that.  And Natalie Holloway?  You'd think she's the UN ambassador to God Himself or something, to watch US news programs.

And we're all buying into this as important issues.

We all need food.  We all need shelter.  We all need clothing.  We all need a long slow blow job occassionally.  And the party that used to so intimately associate itself with these things that affect all of us has lost its way.  The Democrats.  The Republicans?  Hey, they're holding up their end of the bargain.  Time of War?  Wrap yourself up in the flag.  Time of Crises?  Turn to God.  Pick a god.  Any god.  Hey, we like Jews and Hindus too.  And muslims.  Well, sort of.  But what about all that other stuff?  The Dems think they can ever compete with the patriotism and nationalism of the GOP?  C'mon.  Give us a break.  They just need to go back to their schtick.  This is all I'm saying, okay?  Stop giving them bad advice.

Not that you'd win my vote.  Well, not immediately.  My stocks are doing well.   My family is fat and happy.  But it's a start.  You'd win over some voters.

And, basically, as A18 said in a sentence what it took me several multiparagraph posts to say (I'm verbose like that):  leave it to the philosophers to do philosophy; government officials should do government business. 

End of rant.  Thank you.

[angus]

lets postulate that this is gospel.

let's also recognize that at least seven countries in the world have higher UN human development indices than do we. 

Studying their dealing with these "value" issues, we then conclude that "sound values" may include dealing swiftly and not getting bogged down in their debate things like gay rights and abortion.

Or, by contradiction, we conclude syllogistically that the first postulate is utter bullsh**t.

take your pick.

[angus]

or we can postulate that Values aren't limited to what either of you say they are.  I'd conveniently left that out.  But seriously, I'd never said that "values" don't matter, only that yours and mine may be different, and either party would be wise not to attempt to corral us into any given set.  Don't forget that this nation was born of a violent and illegal revolution.  It's hardly appropriate to assume any intrinsic "value system" outside what is explicitly written in the constitution.  And I don't see anywhere that it's written that any of the government branches ought to be spending time arguing any of this.  On the other hand, I do see it written that each state legislature may spend as much or as little time as it likes arguing these issues. 

I believe I stand correct in saying that the Congress needs to get its collective mind out of the gutter.

[angus]

that last sentence can't possibly be true, opebo.

alcoholism (not just being a drunk), but clinical alcoholism is a disease, often inherited, that destroys lives, not just livelihoods.  This is well documented by the AMA. 

[angus]

Gustaf and Dazzleman, all clear.  I don't think we have fundamental disagreement here.  (Though we might argue over some finer points, in particular Gustaf's unsupportable assignment to republicans and democrats of their respective positions, but as I said before it's due to a failure to understand what really defines these parties, and the assumption that the average voter really goes around worrying about issues such as these.)

In short, if you'd remove their clothes and external stimuli, and the respective elements dragging them apart, you might just be surprised at how similar the real, naked, honest-to-god positions of Kerry and Bush are when it comes to stuff like butt-piracy.  In fact, if you go back to when this first became an issue, back in February 2004, and listen to the original un-prepped and unaided press conferences of both candidates on the issue of homomarriage (or union, call it whatever you like), their statements were completely interchangeable.  And this is the sort of history that is conveniently forgotten, or ignored, by every Democrat and Republican out there.

[angus]

"When we grew up and went to school,
there were certain teachers who would
hurt the children any way they could

by pouring their derision upon anything we did
exposing every weakness
however carefully hidden by the kid.

But in the town it was well-known
when they got home, at night
their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
within inches of their lives."


Yeah, I'm mostly in agreement with that last post.  Except one line.  Sometimes my mother or father would say, "Finish your meat, dear.  There are children starving in India, you know."  As if it made a difference to the starving children of India whether the meat when down my gullet, or to the dogs, or in the trash compactor.

I see the argument that they're attacking the family the same way.  Whether or not two men are allowed to marry really doesn't affect my life, my relationship with my wife or my child, the tax break I get for having dependents, or my insurance premium.  And it is on this point that your usually logical stance falters.  Not that I don't think there are attacks (usually by the left, but sometimes from the right) on the family.  This just doesn't seem like one of them.


"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!
How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!"
    --Pink Floyd, lyrics from The Wall

[angus]

now that's helpful.  at least I begin to understand Gustaf's position. 

I'll have to mull that over a bit.  I've posted frequently phrases like "call it whatever you like" but maybe there's more to a name than we give credit.  Though my gut reaction is still the same as Shakespeare's, at least with respect to roses, dogsh**t, and civil unions/gay marriages.

[angus]

Actually, jfern and dazzleman, that's an interesting point.  And it goes to the heart of what I'm claiming Gustaf (and many others) either don't understand or choose not to.  Neither Kerry nor Bush advocate gay marriage.  Nor do either of them oppose gay rights.  In fact, their initial positions were almost exactly the same.  (now, of course, Bush is under such serious pressure he ocassionally makes noises about "codifying" marriage in order to placate interest groups, and Kerry, during the campaign, nearly tripped over himself every time it came up.  But hell, don't blame it on those two candidates for looking so foolish.  That's gotta suck having to placate so many interest groups.  Truth is their feelings on the issue are the same, neither of them have philosophical problems with same sex unions and neither is comfortable with gay marriage.  In fact, me, Gustaf, the Dutch, and a tiny fraction of the population of Canada and Massuchetts favor gay marriage.  And no one in India or China do.  It's really only a small subset of the world population that favor Gay marriage.  Not even migrendel, our resident moralizer, favors gay marriage.  By his own admission.  So assigning that position to the democrats is every bit as silly as assigning the position of homophobia to the average republican.  And every bit as unethical.)

Just a reality check. 

[angus]

only one question out of many on that silly test actually asks about gay marriage.   and there's one about gay couples adopting.  you do the math.  on second thought, don't.  you, and others, put far too much emphasis on those test scores.

migrendel's position on this, and many other issues, are perfectly understandable, and in fact echo my own feelings as a 20-something idealist.  In fact, I'd commented to him after he posted, at length, his views on the issue that his statements captured my own prior sentiments on the issue exactly.  I think you're a big boy, you can search for it all by yourself if you're interested, but in short, I think it was the "marriage" part, and not the "gay" part, of the phrase gay marriage offended him.  I understand that all too well.  If I'd had a nickel for every time I'd said something like, "Hey, man, _________ and I don't need the sanctification of the Church or the State to justify our love, since our love is stronger than any god or government" then I'd have a lot of nickels.  (_______ is a female name that would change every six months or so.)  Anyway, it's not an uncommon view, particularly among those in their 20s who fancy themselves intellectual liberals.  You'll evolve into that stage sometime I'd imagine, and I've evolved beyond it.  Migrendel's deep in it right now.

[angus]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

you really buy this horsesh**t?  heard it on tv.  read it in the paper.  so it must be true.  turn the tube off and think for yourself, man. 

The complications resulting from an overextended empire, the need to circle the wagons and resort to abject nationalism, terrorism and its attendant paranoia, and the general cluelessness, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness of the opposition party is what will guarantee GOP successes for the foreseeable future.  Nobody plays Wrapping oneself up in God and The Flag like the Republicans.  They've been doing this since their first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856 and have been perfecting it since.   The GOP has a lock on nationalism, so don't even try to best them at that.  And come off this "kulturkampf" garbage.  It's Nixon's (very successful) way of taking our minds off important stuff and making the Democrats look petty.  (like they need any help!)  Want a viable opposition party?  Find a charming personality, like you did in 1992, and change the debate to money matters, convince the voters that the GOP is frivolously wasting our nation's treasure (surely that can't be difficult), have the balls to say you're tired of Empire and want to return to The Republic, and you might have a shot.   Waste all your time calculating this geopolitic garbage (well, we need this social issue to win the Upper Midwest, that social issue to win the South, the other social issue to win the Intermontane West, etc.) and you'll continue to lose.

[angus]

The GOP manages to keep its fundamentalist and libertarian wings together (I don't know how)

then you're as clueless as the Democrats are.  Red's a good color for you.

still, it's a nice rant.  I like to read such visceral posts.  Like to make 'em too. 

It was a rather tongue-in-cheek comment on my part that one. Still, something of political conundrum on social issues anyway

Dave

seriously, dave, I think many in the mainstream press are overblowing this.  you only read what posters here write.  but if you lived here (maybe you've visited the USA recently?) you'd see that all our major news outlets run about one, maybe two, story at a time.  Three max.  Day in, day out.  Now, at the moment, the weather seems to trump everything, which, all things considered, is at least useful information.  But on slow news days, we get talking head after talking head endlessly prattling on about this "hot button social issue" or another.  Morning, noon, and night.  And if you say something enough times, it's true.  Lot's of these guys that post here are like 20, 19, or even younger.  they can't imagine, or conceive of what it must be like looking for a job, paying rent, choosing stocks and bonds, deciding whether an ache really merits a medical appointment, or worrying about one's child's education.  and, given that they hear constantly about things like "gay marriage" on the TV all day every day, it becomes front and center for them.  Anyway, I am absolutely convinced that in order for the Democrats to be competitive they cannot attempt to steal the GOP thunder on GOP-dominant issues (terrorism, military, nationalism), nor can they hope to win on "social" issues.  Mostly because those issues are hardly as relevant as their party leaders are having them believe, but also because for that fraction of voters for whom the are important, democrats are on the "wrong side" of those issues.  Democrats do have a million ways to win though.  A million legitimate chances to attack the republicans (hardly "conservative" anymore, don't you think?  a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon our great-great grandchildren are sold as slaves to china just to keep us solvent).  I'm just so amazed that they don't take issues, real issues, important issues, and play them correctly.  Instead, they're doing this whole "social issue" and geopolotical strategy thing.  What works for the GOP may not work for the Democrats.  There's no a priori reason to think it should, given the fact that nationalists are by nature won over by different means than the less nationalistic types.  I'm less a loyalist than one who really enjoys the game.  And a fairly matched set of teams always makes for a more exciting game than, say, the jamaican bobsled team versus the norweigans.