posted on May 6, 2008 08:34:51 AM new
Demography Is King
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: April 29, 2008
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.
But that’s all changed. In the decades since, some social divides, mostly involving ethnicity, have narrowed. But others, mostly involving education, have widened. Today there is a mass educated class. The college educated and non-college educated are likely to live in different towns. They have radically different divorce rates and starkly different ways of raising their children. The non-college educated not only earn less, they smoke more, grow more obese and die sooner.
Retailers, home builders and TV executives identify and reinforce these lifestyle clusters. There are more niche offerings and fewer common experiences.
The ensuing segmentation has reshaped politics. We’re used to the ideological divide between Red and Blue America. This year’s election has revealed a deep cultural gap within the Democratic Party, separating what Stuart Rothenberg calls the two Democratic parties.
In state after state (Wisconsin being the outlier), Barack Obama has won densely populated, well-educated areas. Hillary Clinton has won less-populated, less-educated areas. For example, Obama has won roughly 70 percent of the most-educated counties in the primary states. Clinton has won 90 percent of the least-educated counties. In state after state, Obama has won a few urban and inner-ring suburban counties. Clinton has won nearly everywhere else.
This social divide has overshadowed regional differences. Sixty-year-old, working-class Catholics vote the same, whether they live in Fresno, Scranton, Nashua or Orlando.
The divide has even overshadowed campaigning. Surely the most interesting feature of the Democratic race is how unimportant political events are. The candidates can spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising, but they are not able to sway their opponent’s voters to their side. They can win a stunning victory, but the momentum doesn’t carry over from state to state. They can make horrific gaffes, deliver brilliant speeches, turn in good or bad debate performances, but these things do not alter the race.
In Pennsylvania, Obama did everything conceivable to win over Clinton’s working-class voters. The effort was a failure. The great uniter failed to unite. In this election, persuasion isn’t important. Social identity is everything. Demography is king.
Over the years, different theories have emerged to describe the educated/less-educated divide. Conservatives have gravitated toward the culture war narrative, dividing the country between the wholesome masses and the decadent cultural elites. Some liberals believe income inequality drives everything. They wait for an uprising of economic populism. Other liberals divide the country morally, between the enlightened urbanites and the racist rednecks who will never vote for a black man.
None of these theories really fit the facts. It’s more accurate to say that the country has simply drifted apart into different subcultures. There’s no great hostility between the cultures. Americans have a fuzzy sense of where the boundaries lie. But people in different niches have developed different unconscious maps of reality. They have developed different communal understandings of what constitutes a good leader, of what sort of world they live in. They have developed different communal definitions, which they can’t even articulate, of what they mean by liberty, security and virtue. Demographic groups have begun to function like tribes or cultures.
We can all play the parlor game of trying to figure out why Obama, a Harvard Law grad, resonates with the more educated while Clinton, a Yale Law grad, resonates with the less educated. I’d throw in that Obama’s offer of a secular crusade hits a nerve among his fellow bobos, while Clinton’s talk of fighting and resilience plays well down market.
But these theories only scratch the surface. The mental maps people in different cultures form are infinitely complex and poorly understood even by those who hold them. People pick up millions of subtle signals from body language, word choice, facial expressions, policy positions and biographical details. Efforts to rebrand a candidate to appeal to down-market voters are inevitably crude and counterproductive.
The core message is that even if you take away the ideological differences between the parties, you are still left with profound social gulfs within the parties. There’s poignancy to that. The upscale liberals who revere Obama have spent their lives championing equality and opposing privilege. But they’ve smashed the old WASP social hierarchy only to create a new educational one.
--
_____________________
posted on May 6, 2008 09:06:48 AM new
Efforts to rebrand a candidate to appeal to down-market voters are inevitably crude and counterproductive.
//////////////////////////////////////////
But is this not what political marketing is all about?
Politicians will do anything to get votes!
Get out of Iraq tomorrow,good,cheap healthcare plan for everyone and raising minimum wage,holding down inflation and enjoy a better standard of living are all achievable ,all it takes is a pair of lips moving !
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on May 7, 2008 05:33:03 AM new
Blacks present a strong United front when it comes to flexing their political power,and one man one vote may just be the one and only power they have among the underprivileged ones.
I see that in New Orleans when the blacks who are on welfare turn out to vote for a black mayor,even after Katrina,they were bussed back to New Orleans to cast their vote.
Ron Brown,the deceased one time chairman of the Democratic Party called it 'The Machine' and when the machine starts to move,there is no stopping.
When Richard Nixon ran against Kennedy in the 1960s,there were widespread fraud coming out of Chicago,especially south side Chicago and some one urged him to investigate but he decided not to.Many blacks hold more than one ID,this is why George Bush asked 'Please vote only once!'.
But then someone pointed out in rural areas where there are more conservatives,Republicans have a way too,this is exposed during the Gore vs Bush presidential suabbles.
Indiana passed a law which require its residents to present photo ID driver license to vote and 11 older catholic nuns in South Bend Indiana were not able to vote last night as they do not drive!
Lake County was late in reporting its results.Lake County has many black constituents and it is close to Chicago,a strong democratic stronghold (in fact Chicago writes the book on democratic dominance-from their Irish and black mayors to their affiliation with mobsters such as Al Capone ),south side Chicago which is predominantly black is a training ground for black leaders,Jesse Jackson arrived in Chicago with a letter of recommendation from the Carolina governor and the good Mayor DALEY senior sent him to ring door bells as precint captain,get out and vote and you will get a chicken afterwards,thats the way they get people out to vote!
If blacks vote for black because he is black,this is just as bad as the black jury in OJ Simpson case,
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on May 7, 2008 04:50:52 PM newIf blacks vote for black because he is black,this is just as bad as the black jury in OJ Simpson case
What about white democrats who'll vote for Hillary just because she's white, isn't that the same thing? Or for that matter, the democrats who'll swing to McGain because they don't want to vote for a black OR a woman...
In deference to women who'll vote for Hillary because she's female and blacks who'll vote for Obama because he's black, I can understand why. NEITHER of these groups of voters has ever had this opportunity before. Up to now, their choices have always been white men. Can't blame them really. I can't honestly say I wouldn't do the same thing for a latino candidate, male OR female...More than any other election, I think when it comes to the presidency, lots of people vote their gut, not their head.
posted on May 7, 2008 05:08:20 PM new
This is very true,when someone gets up and make a speech which touches a cord in our psyche or he /she said something appeal to our current needs (healthcare or withdraw the troops) or we just like that person because he reminds us of someone we like or we just dont like women who married well and have more than we do (many women dont like Hilary because of her attitude),none of these really tell us how he/she would perform in the White House?
There are people who are still looking for the next Kennedy,but I have never heard of anyone looking for the next Eisenhower?
We may as well be looking for Valentino or Shangri La!
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on May 7, 2008 06:47:51 PM new
Well,I am Asian,there is no US president who is Asian,there is however a mayor of Seattle who is.
But if there is an Asian running for president,I would only vote for him if I think he will do a good job ,better than any candidate,demo or republican he is running against.
I am not a fan of Hilary,I am not even a democrat,but I believe she can do something for the country and she can start doing it as soon as she gets into the White House,but the way things are going for her now,I am afraid it is just not going to work out that way.
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on May 7, 2008 07:53:09 PM new
Personally I don't care what race or gender a candidate may be. But I am happy that those black people who favor Obama finally have the opportunity to vote for such an outstanding representative of their race as our country's next president.
I live in Maryland, where the population is 29% black and 71% white We voted overwhelmingly for Obama as the Democratic candidate.
posted on May 7, 2008 10:45:48 PM new
Absolutely right, Helen! Honestly though? I'm afraid if he ever becomes President, some kook will try to kill him. Good people in politics always get killed.
I worry, for example, about politicians who represent a clear and present danger to the profitable operation of the unscrupulous insurance industry in America. Over 20,000 people are left to die every year because they can't afford insurance premiums.
Do you believe that the insurance industry will let one man's life disturb their infamous operation just because he is president?
