As someone who grew up in a white working class area that almost never votes Democratic, I would argue, from personal experience, the main cause is a "macho culture" that sees Democrats as effeminate (they would use a stronger term) .

And this culture is just far more prevalent in the South and in states where Whites vote in lower numbers for Dems.

Now this macho subculture isn't necessarily racist -- though it often is -- but the causes of race equality and other liberal causes are almost always seen in a negative light, as people trying to rig the system to give those other folks (all who this sub-culture see as unworthy) something they don't deserve.

I'm not defending this, as I've long since seen the light -- but it's a reality -- and IMO -- the best way to overcome it is for Dems to own the "personal responsibility" issue.

samalex:

I'm not defending this, as I've long since seen the light -- but it's a reality -- and IMO -- the best way to overcome it is for Dems to own the "personal responsibility" issue.

It's not a bad criticism. One reason for Obama's remarkable ascendancy is that he was talking personal responsibility even before he was on the national radar; also, his refusal to play the old identity politics was refreshing. These things might play locally but sink democrats nationally.

I would add that to hold power, in addition to owning these issues (i.e., not allowing conservatives to frame them) democrats must begin to acknowledge and talk "culture of life." Stay quietly firm on a woman's choice, of course--but frame the issue in terms of life, options for unwanted pregnancy.

I really think the future for either party is going to be based on taking or responsibilities more seriously. it is a great way to appeal to the "daddy" and "realist" in many white men.

This is a nation where people tell their children to work hard and save and not go into debt, and then we collectively vote to spend spend spend on ourselves and have our children cover it for us. We justify this by pointing to the latest crisis when anyone over the age of 30 knows that everyone's life is just one crisis after the other, and the country is just the same.

All this talk of responsibility sacrifice and values and niether party delivers anything on this front. maybe I am wrong and people are just too consumption crazed, but I would think a politican that says "Look I am cutting spending wildly, increasing taxes and doing this to alleviate your childrens crushing tax burden so they do not need to pay for your largess would be welcomed". Maybe I am just a naive idiot.

Good analysis by the OP and it shows again that the issue of the Southern White vote or any subgroup vote is more complex than "Black/White".

Different groups can have different values and motivations. I would argue, for example, that the voting motivations for Blacks voting 90% for Al Gore, 94% for LBJ, and 95% for Obama; were probably different in each case. Gore may have benefitted from his vice presidency in the Clinton Administration and Blacks tended to favor the Clintons. LBJ may have benefited from his support for Civil Rights, Obama benefited from being "not Bush". All of these reasons are more complex than "Black/White" or race.

There are abortion issues; taxes; health care; gay rights; national security. A candidate's particular stance on any combination of these issues can have meaning to different demographic groups like White Male Southerners or Northeastern Hispanic women.

"his refusal to play the old identity politics was refreshing"

Oh really?!? He reminded us everyday of his "identity". Were you not paying attention?

I would argue that the white working class votes against Dems, not as a result of an aversion to "effeminate" men, but because of what you refer to as the liberal "causes." Understand that the working class opposes tax hikes and redistribution. The thought process is that if I have to go work my ass off for my paycheck, the guy down the street should do the same. It's two different views of "equality." The liberal view is that Chuck has more than Bob, so we need to take some of what Chuck has so that Bob can have the same. The conservative "working class" view tells Bob to go get the training and experience and go out and work to achieve what Chuck achieved.

I would suggest that the USA is no longer a culture that tells its kids to work hard and avoid debt. That was at least 20 years ago.

Those macho guys don't seem to mind the wild spending as long as it is for wars.

I also would argue that if there is anything the government should be spending money on, it is the military.

pt_austin, please document Obama's daily use of the phrase, "as a black man..." or "as an African-American...". Perhaps it was your own pointy head that "identified" him as such every time you saw his face?

FordTruck, you are oblivious to your own immersion in class warfare. Both Democrats and Republicans remove cash from your pocket and redistribute it. The reason you vote Republican is because you are middle class can accept money being taken from you and given to the rich but you can't stand the idea that it be given to the poor.

In your mind rich people are somehow better or harder-working or more deserving of your money than poor people. In reality poor people, as a group, work much harder than rich people. Sure there are a few leeches sitting on their porch smoking reefer but far more are working for minimum wage (as you used to, and ought to know better) and barely surviving. Rich people never create a drop of sweat during their workday, if they even work at all. Many of them create and maintain their wealth by occassionally telling their broker "buy" or "sell". That is some really rough, backbreaking work, I'll tell ya. They really earn their millions.

I'm sure you can't see it but in your class warfare mind, giving money to the rich doesn't hurt you because they are already richer than you. But if money is given to the poor, that elevates them closer to your status and you cannot tolerate that. It is the same for many other working class people. The "lazy" excuse for not helping the poor is just that. A made up excuse. The rich do far less work for far far more money but somehow they are not lazy? Please.

FDR, Truman, Kennedy brothers,, LBJ Clinton effeminate.....are you kidding? Carter and Edwards, yes. Kucinich( in a category by himself) Biden and Obama....definitely no.

For some anyone who does not say nuke em, turn Iran into glass. bomb bomb ,obliterate, kill anything that moves iin Iraq, is effeminate. Likewise anyone who does not like to watch guys (macho men) run around in circles in a speeding car. Likewise those who do not delight in boarding in hockey and blitzers who try to give the QB a concussion, torn ACL or broken leg. Also those who do not think the Bible supports gay hating, racism, slavery and actiing as the terrible swift sword of God.

I see your point but you don't really know Bob, do you? You see, Bob has been working in the construction field and last year he had an accident that has kept him from working for six months. His wife is working and so is his oldest child, but they are still unable to pay the bills, since Bob's medical bills are getting higher every day and his pills cost more than the grocery bill. Bob is really hurting and if he belonged to a local church, perhaps they would aid him in his plight. Instead, he is going to have to rely on a government assistance program until he can get back on his feet. Being truly thankful for not having to file for bankruptcy and loose his home, Bob works hard to make a full recovery and get off the public dole and back to work.

Conservatives would call this a handout. I say that this is giving a person a handup.

What in the holy Hell are you talking about? I pay taxes, I think I understand how that part works. Now as for your psychological analysis of me, don't quit your day job. As far as redistribution goes, I'd like you to explain your position a little further, as it makes no sense to me.

Yes, I used to work BS, minimum wage jobs. And now I don't. Not once did I receive a government check or any kind of hand out. I wouldn't even accept a couple hundred bucks from my own family to help make the truck payment. How that should lead me to be OK with the government declaring who deserves my money is beyond me.

Now, a very large sector of the so-called "rich" that you decry has risked a great deal to start and grow businesses that employ other people and provide goods and services that people want and need. They've worked and sacrificed for years, sometimes decades, to reach the point where they are financially well-off. You're damn right that I oppose the government confiscating their wealth and giving it to someone else. The biggest problem with your argument is that there is no way to accurately determine who's "worked harder" for their money. You just favor across-the-board wealth-jacking in the name of "fairness." Moreover, most people with some money (myself included) already voluntarily help the poor by donating their time, talent and money. Besides, who ever said it "hurt" to help out someone in need? Oh yeah, that was you.

Finally, the fallacy of your status argument is that giving "the poor" a welfare check doesn't elevate anyone's status. Making the check bigger only provides a greater incentive to keep doing the things that make them poor (buying stuff they can't afford, working crap jobs if at all). I'd invite you to read up on the Soviet Union and why it was an economic nightmare. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his means" just doesn't work. Also, read up on the birth of capitalism in this country (before we were a country). The system of common stores failed. The system of individuals working their own land succeeded. One created shortages, the other created surplusses. History serves as a good teacher here.

"samalex wrote the following post at 11/13/2008 9:30 AM:

As someone who grew up in a white working class area that almost never votes Democratic, I would argue, from personal experience, the main cause is a "macho culture" that sees Democrats as effeminate (they would use a stronger term) ."

That's odd. All the working class blue collar people I grew up with were Democrats and the snooty rich wasp's with pot smoking hippie kids in college protesting we Republicans. We were the ones who were drafted to fight because our parents could not afford to send us to college and hence, get a college deferment. If we survived we went to school on the GI Bill. Ever wonder, during the last 8 years of Republican dominance in the house and senate that the number of Veterans in the Democratic minority outnumberd the number of Veterans in the Republican majority?

And all of the "faggots" who've been caught with their pants down chasing pages or taking a "suggestive stance" in the mens room are Republicans.

Go look at your own before you start pointing fingers, chump. You may learn a concept called humility. We are all Americans and we have a job to do. Either chip in or get the hell out of the way and shut your mouth.

FordTruck5speed,

Did you ever receive an earned income tax credit? You know when you make below (I forgot the amount), you get a tax credit. Most of us got one (or more) when we began working.

If so you may want to reconsider this statement:

FordTruck5Speed wrote the following post at 11/13/2008 12:58 PM:

"Yes, I used to work BS, minimum wage jobs. And now I don't. Not once did I receive a government check or any kind of hand out."

OK, let's come back to reality, as lame-brain name calling gets us nowhere.

I have a disagreement with the orignial post, as you can read from earlier. Yet, let's take a look at demographics for a moment. The working class in cities like Detroit and Pittsburgh for some God-unknown reason identifiy with Democrats (probably because the union told them to vote Democrat), and they keep electing Democrats that do what Democrats do, and continue to drive the city further and further into the pit of Hell. The small-town/rural working class, however, tends to vote Republican. Now, exactly why this phenomenon occurs, I honestly don't know. But, have you ever noticed the philosophical trends in those different areas? I can say that in Pittsburgh, the working-class thought process is along the lines of, "You owe me, so pay up," whereas in the outer lying areas it's closer to, "If I want it, I have to go make it." Just something I've noticed. Either way, I think it would explain the discrepancy with regards to party affiliation.