But I disagree with the idea that white men vote for Bush in self-interest. It’s pretty clear that he hasn’t helped anyone - and a ton of white men are out of work, or were, because of his economic policies. My theory goes back to a survey I saw four years ago, “Which presidential candidate would you rather sit next to on the plane?” Bush won handily. People assumed that he would get enough good advice to make up for the fact that he just isn’t all that smart. Sure, people misunderestimated him, but I’m hoping it won’t happen again.

The problem with the advice he was getting was that some of it was contradictory and self serving, but he couldn’t tell the difference.

People want a ‘buddy’ for a president, not a leader.

The examples you pointed out, though, of why it was not in white men’s self-interest to vote for Bush were all economic-, or class-, based. The main thrust of Amp’s post was that white males seem to be ignoring this economic impetus when voting for Republican Presidents and instead vote for their social self-interest, or perceived self-interest, in the form of voting against civil rights.

I am not saying Amp is wrong, but I don’t think that the issue is as simple as “White men hate everyone.”

Oh, and I’m adding you to my blogroll. :)

My own view is that most Americans don’t follow politics at all, and vote pretty much on soundbites. Given the republican media monopoly (now they’re even going after public radio and tv), the soundbites people digest are not going to help anybody but Bush. Though of course most Americans don’t vote at all…

Echidne

I think civil rights has suffered more because it isn’t even on many people radars, and for many of the rest, it gets washed out by patriotism and blind faith. I don’t agree that people are voting for Bush because they think civil rights has come too far, and needs to be cut back, although it may be a factor in their decision. But it is one factor among many, and the dominating factor is that Bush is likable, and the democratic candidates come off like the kid who tries too hard in class. Nothing has changed since high school, people would rather have a jock than a nerd for president. What the democrats need is a good sex scandal - it worked for Clinton!

Consider this: George W. Bush appealed to a lot of men, partly because of his perception as being a blunt-talking, strapping, manly type (and let’s admit it: Bush’s party-boy past only makes him more appealing to some), but also for more subtle things. A growing number of men feel threatened by the increases in freedom that women have received. Men have lost their jobs and those that have them have seen their wages fall and they want to know why. We’ve all heard the canard about how women and minorities are using political correctness to steal men’s jobs and so have a lot of men. So when a Presidential canidate gets on-stage and sounds decidedly un-PC with his wife standing quietly behind him, it plays to men’s perceptions.

I’m not saying that huge swathes of men go to the voting booths and stand around thinking “hmm, how should I vote to keep those uppity coloured and women in their place” but that Bush seems to be proving their fears are true. Bush’s life was messed up but he grew out of his frat boy phrase and is now President of the United States… and look at that: his wife is submissive.

It may be a distrust/dislike of civil rights, the need to affirm Bush’s choice to go to war, to ’stand by their man, the belief that no democrat is strong enough on Nat. Security, who knows?

What is interesting to me, would be to find those men, determined to stand by Bush, and figure out what *would* be enough for them to change thier vote. It is too late to educate many of these voters about civil rights, the election isn’t far away. Would emphasizing the lies he told to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and the ones he told to avoid the draft, work? The fact that the economy hasn’t noticably improved? The vicious and spiteful attacks on the environment? The connections between the administration and the energy industry? The fact that the enourmous increase in police powers has deteriorated their personal liberty while not managing to catch a single terrorist?

On a scale of 1 to 10, civil rights is an ‘x’ in importance to white males. What issues exist between x and 10?

And Laura Bush doesn’t seem very submissive to me- it seems likely to me that she kicks W’s ass every time he steps out of line.

Four years ago, more people may have wanted to sit next to Bush on a plane, but fewer people wanted him to be president.

Creepy, isn’t it, how easy it is to forget this?

Laura Bush comes off as submissive because her primary role seems to be supporting her husband. She seems to be happy with that, and a lot of males probably find that non-threatening. I guess more men find that non-threatening than find the notion of supporting a stay-at-home wife burdensome.

White males like George W. Bush? Then again, white males also think Coors Light is good beer.

What the Dems need to do is demonize Bush’s military record, particularly if Kerry or Clark make the ticket as the nominee for President or Vice-President. Contrast Purple Heart-winning swift boat commander Kerry’s or NATO commander Clark’s military record with Bush’s dereliction of duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

All you have to do is get a percentage of white men over to the Dems’ side, then shore up the base of suburban white women. Get city folk of all races out to the polls.

Attack Bush at every angle. Use clever ads, like some of the better MoveOn.org contest entries. Make Bush into a stuffed-shirt preppie who was a playboy flyboy when others suffered and died in Vietnam, but who’s more than willing to send your sons and daughters to war to benefit Halliburton.

Don’t be afraid of being thought of as mean. We need a Dem strategist with the balls of Lee Atwater, the ovaries of Janeane Garofalo, or the utter lack of conscience as Karl Rove.

Yes, it’s interesting that his military reputation doesn’t have to be real at all to work.
Someone who was in the military at about the same time told me that you’d really have to f*** up not to get promoted past the rank Bush held at exit. So even with all the family connections, he barely made it.

I’ve been thinking about some of the Bush attraction issues in the context of Rush Limbaugh,
and I think that just like with Rush, the truth or not of the image that’s being built around Bush is a lot less important than the image itself: one of us, an anti-intellectual Christian who doesn’t bother with all that PC crap; a straight guy etc..

Which is exactly what Dean meant by that thing about becoming the candidate of guys with the Confederate flag on their pickup trucks.

When discussing politics and voting in my sociology classes, the majority of my classmates admitted that they do not vote. The reasons? Because they find it difficult to follow politics. They’re not interested. It doesn’t affect them.

We also had the chance to discuss white priviledge. Again, the majority of my classmates (who were white and female, I must point out) did not believe there is even such a thing as “white priviledge”. Disheartening to me, they even went so far as to proclaim that the feminist movement was no longer needed!

It’s been my experience that very few people actually follow news and politics. Few seek out all of the candidates in order to educate themselves on their platforms. Few really try to find one that aligns best with their own politics.

I think it’s really hard for white men to admit to themselves (and each other) that they do in fact hold such power and priviledge on the sole basis of their sex and skin colour. And fear of loosing that power can be overwhelming. Why on earth would you want to give that up?

Many don’t seek out the information regarding the fact that they would actually, truly, benefit by “giving up” some of their priviledges and power.

I believe it does boil down to soundbites.

If people aren’t contacting their representatives, possible candidates, and/or logging on to their websites to read about their platforms, the easiest way they are able to learn about candidates is from snipits on corporate tv and radio stations. And with the way things are currently set up, that means they’re only hearing from those that can pay to have their voices and faces streamed.

Excellent discussion, Amp.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17431

This argues that the appeal of Bush to white men is that he reminds them (by his own example) that they are supposed to be privileged without any reason other than being white men, whether they otherwise deserve it or not. It is reassuring to people who otherwise feel that their every chance is being taken away by “others” (women, immigrants, etc.) The more white men feel cheated (Stiffed, in Susan Faludi’s terms), the more they need to be reassured that white men still can rule.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16828

This one goes into the family metaphors that underly the Republican discourse. Also a great read.