Strength, Toughness and Emasculation of the Working Man

[Zarathud]

I went to an interesting speech by Clinton's former Labor Secretary Bob Reich at a university event (NOT a Democratic event, as I am a moderate Republican for Kerry). My words are no doubt nowhere as eloquent, funny or clear as Reich (and have my own thoughts worked in as well), but I'll I'll try to summarize an interesting theory of his (and only a theory was the disclaimer) the best I can -- I'm wondering what people think.

Bob Reich called this election about "strength and toughness." The subtext of a lot of the Republican challenges to Kerry is that he's not strong enough -- flip-floppers can't be strong, etc. And Kerry's message is that you can't be "strong but wrong" when you have a war hero as an alternative (aka the real deal).

He then asked why strength and toughness were viewed as important by Americans -- particularly the working-class male demographic which is shifting from the Democrats to the Republicans. His theory is that there is a sense of "threatened male ego" (my words) which could be behind the working-class man turning away from the Democrats and to the Republicans. In an economic sense, blue-collar working men are unable to live up to the role of sole bread-winner/family provider, as two wage earners are needed to maintain standards of living. Add the sense of economic insecurity about one's own earning potential is the fear of losing work. This was his theory for the conservative talk-show circuits regularly attacking the latte-drinking effeminine liberal intellectuals (aka "economic girlie men" I thought). Couple this economic male insecurity with an attack on the country, and it makes some sense why this election emphasizes alpha-male traits like decisiveness, forcefullness, certainty and strength. In his view, Bush's strong positives boil down to "folksiness" (his words) -- he's a common guy like working-class George who will kick ass if someone threatens us.

The danger for Democrats is not that voters don't care about jobs, health care, etc. His recent cross-country road trip led to an interesting story about conversations at roadside diners in "red states" where he could have an 8-10 minute conversation about common economic ground (who he was, the state of the economy, uncertainty about jobs, etc.), before the topic turned to the general critique of Democrats -- "immorality" (his word). After pressing for WHY the other person thought that Democrats were immoral, 3 things were prominent: (1) abortion, (2) homosexuals, and (3) Monica Lewinsky. Notice that all 3 are sex-based. And in this context, he suggested that maybe the reason why President Clinton's negatives were so high was because his administration started off with (1) revising the homosexuals in the military policy, (2) putting a strong woman like Hillary Clinton into the executive policy role of crafting health care reform, the centerpiece of his initial campaign, and (3) restricting guns. All 3 of those topics would subconsciously threaten those on the right and those working class men who are concerned about their eroding dominant-male status.

He contrasted this situation with President Bush, who "really was struggling for a direction until 9/11" (his words). After 9/11, Bush tapped into this upwelling of psychic trauma by looking to kick some ass and be the Machiavellian "better to be feared than loved" (his words). The unilateral, decisive certitude, admitting to no mistake and to no question could be paying off for Bush because it taps into this economic insecurity.

Thought-provoking stuff, I thought. It could explain why many have a strong "gut" feeling in favor of President Bush regardless of what's really going on with his administration. It also explains the debates, I think. Kerry received a big bump initially because he flat-out defeated Bush in the first debate -- President Bush looked weak, clueless and nowhere near the strong, decisive leader that people hope him to be. Kerry evened the race by carrying himself well throughout, being forceful in demanor and strong in speech. Bush started to look a little TOO aggressive and combatative in the last speech in order to recapture that "alpha-male" status of being the "big dog."

And, of course, Bob Reich repeated the "we have no idea who will win" Democratic party line based on the inability to track the legions of new voters who are more likely (in his opinion) to vote Democratic. In order of strength, the inside numbers on the motivations to vote are: (1) anti-Bush, (2) pro-Bush, (3) anti-Kerry, and (4) pro-Kerry. That's hard to predict a winner, so the bottom line was -- expect a squeaker for whoever wins. Which seems to be a fair evaluation.

Comments? It certainly explains Arnold Schwartzenegger's popularity, if true.

[ChrisGrenard]

As what Ahnold would call a "girly-man" I definitally see a lot of hostility towards those who seem less masculine.

I, of course, think that it is incrediably stupid bullshit that most guys do. You havn't seen dumb until you've seen 3 drunken freshmen guys trying to hit on a girl.

What I tend to notice is that there is hostility towards what I would call empathy. Any time I explain that I feel sorry for so-and-so, I find that (more Republican) guys who are around me pretty much go into a masculine, "let's make fun of them" routine. Almost like it is wrong to feel sympathy for others.

The basics of what you are talking about pretty much cover the same thing I've seen in life.

[Unbreakable]

Im of the opinion that if you need to worry about being unmanly, than you probably are. Likewise if you are worried about whether you arent 'cool', or smell bad.

Not that I even care how manly a man someone is: it doesnt pay my bills. But most people worry too much about stupid shit, thats for sure.

People with great minds talk about ideas.
People with ordinary minds talk about things.
People with small minds talk about other people.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt

[Unbreakable]

BTW, a strange idea occured to me, but I wanted to make my prediction known in the bizarre event I am correct.

My prediction is this- Bush will either barely win, or lose big.

For some reason, I dont see Kerry as barely winning- it will either be a sizable win or a narrow defeat. My reasoning is this- if it is close, Bush has all the means of cheating in place, so anything close will come out in his favor. Essentially the only thing which can defeat him will be a sizable victory in that case.

What could, IMO, give a sizable victory to Kerry is that for some reason, this year the polls just seem... false to me. Im not rationalizing it, because it its an intuitive conclusion. I just get the feeling that the polls are either wrong because of unforseen factors, such as the large amount of young people getting involved and voting, and/or a higher than normal turnout for the democrats, or a backlash against Bush from the disenfranchised black voters from St. Louis and in Florida still pissed about 2000 (and 2002, in Florida's case). OR, the polls could be wrong because of deliberate manipulation by the Rovites (Rovians?), cue conspiracy theory with obligatory tinfoil hat.

But the latter isnt so far fetched, in my mind, given the unprecidented influence the White House exerts on the media and political organizations. Why manipulate the polls? Because if you are going to tamper with the vote, you cant have the final vote differ that much from the pre-vote polls or the exit polls. Now that you have one poll claiming a landslide victory for Bush and another a landslide for Kerry, people now give the same faith to polls as the give to weather reports.

[Spock's Brain]

I fear the men who fear "girlie men". Paranoia will damage America far more than its *real* enemies could ever imagine.

[Poleaxe]

You guys are a bunch of pussies.

[CSL]

You guys are a bunch of pussies.

That sounds like something a girlie man would say

[Kadoth Nodens]

Zarathud,

That was an interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

I think your write up was pretty much dead on. I'd guess national defense issues have much more to do with the "alpha male" drek than economic issues, though. Poor people don't necessarily look to a tough guy for salvation, but scared folks do.

You guys are a bunch of pussies.

You identify your fellow posters with female genitalia? Hmmmm. . .