A Further Perspective

The Democrats’ White-Male Problem

Among others, too numerous to list in a headline.

By 11.13.12

Send to Kindle

We're being told by Democrats that Republicans have a white-male problem. But what about Democrats' white-male problem?

Think about it: What about the Democratic Party's extraordinary loss of white males? It was white males who built the Democratic Party, and built America, and stormed the beaches of Normandy, and defeated Hitler, and much more. I'm a white male. Many of us are actually decent people. My Christian white-male ancestors fought for the north in the Civil War and freed black Americans from slavery. A lot of them died for that. I'm proud of what they did.

Why make fun of us? Why are so many liberals seemingly so contemptuous of white males? Why do they hate us?

Moreover, why wouldn't Democrats want to try to win back some white males? And why are white males so solidly Republican, a trend that started 30 years ago?

The Democrats have ceded this huge voting bloc to Republicans. Every four years, Democrats start with that major disadvantage. It's like Republicans starting with Electoral College losses of California, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.

For that matter, why aren't Democrats appealing to married women? Married women voted for Mitt Romney handily. Obama got single women in a landslide, but, last I checked, there are tens of millions of married women in America—and they didn't vote Democrat.

Furthermore, why are Democrats losing people over the age of 45? Those aged 45-64 (men and women both) voted Romney over Obama 51-47, and those 65 or older went Romney 56-44. I understand there will be a lot more of these voters going forward. These are the Social Security and Medicare recipients that Democrats have been banking on for 50 years.

Another good question that ought to concern Democrats: Why did nearly 60 percent of churchgoing Catholics vote for Mitt Romney? Year-by-year, faithful Catholics have faithfully moved away from the Democratic Party. They once formed the backbone of the party. They were a slam-dunk for Democrats. Not anymore. They're gone. Why aren't Democrats trying to appeal to them?

Even more striking, why did nearly 80 percent of evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, over Barack Obama, a Christian?

In fact, why are religious people in general fleeing the Democratic Party like the plague? If you describe yourself as churchgoing, you tend to vote Republican. This has been true for at least 20 years now. To the contrary, those who describe themselves as "not very" or "not at all" religious vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee. Sure, the country is getting more secular, but the vast majority of Americans still believe in God.

Once upon a time, the Democrats were a very religious party. Populists like William Jennings Bryan were the heart and soul of the party. Not anymore. Gay marriage and abortion -- two new planks liberals have eagerly embraced -- will continue to drive away devoutly religious people.

And what about pro-lifers? Do Democrats want only radical abortion advocates in their tent? If you're pro-life, you vote Republican -- period. As the Democrats expand their abortion frontier to include forced taxpayer funding of everything from Planned Parenthood to contraception (their new "entitlement") they will further repel any and all pro-lifers.

While we're at it, have the Democrats looked at a county map lately? Basically, every state is colored red, with the exception of the scattered dots that comprise big cities. Take away Philadelphia, and Mitt Romney easily wins my state of Pennsylvania. What are Democrats doing to reach out to the vast landscape that consistently votes Republican?

Speaking of which, what about the South? It's a guarantee for Republicans every four years. It didn't used to be that way. Just a few decades ago, the entire swath of the South was more Democratic than Massachusetts. What are the Democrats doing to attract Southerners?

Now, that said, I'm not ignorant to certain demographics that concern me as a conservative Republican. For one, it's both disconcerting and absurd that 71 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, up from 67 percent in 2008. Hispanics are socially conservative. They are devoutly Catholic, pro-life, pro-family, and likely not big advocates of gay marriage. Republicans must pay them much greater attention. I felt from the outset that Marco Rubio was a better political pick than Paul Ryan for this reason. Republicans need not alter their message or jettison conservatism to reach Latinos, quite the contrary. They simply need to be more strategic.

Few groups of Americans are as hard-working as Hispanics. They have defied the odds and made it in this country. They are natural conservatives. (So are black Americans, who are not liberals and should not be voting so overwhelmingly for this radically liberal and secular modern Democratic Party.)

The GOP needs to think carefully about reaching these groups. Conservatism need not change its principles. It can't. By definition, it can't. That's what progressivism does.

But before we get lectured from liberal Democrats about our side's problems, I suggest they consider their own. In truth, they will not be doing so publicly, and neither will their media. Their attack on the GOP's "white-male problem" is just that: an attack. It's a political campaign that the liberal media will gleefully aid and abet. The goal isn't to help the Republican Party but to caricature and undermine it in order to advance Democrats. Forgive me if I find their concern insincere.

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article
About the Author

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative.