Information and Links
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
- Other Posts
- Barefoot Running?
- Upcoming Journalistic Events
Of Foxes, Chickens, and Voter Demographics
The party that prides itself on opposition to racism, bigotry, and all forms of discrimination has taken to demographically branding its voters like cattle in a stock yard. Apparently stereotypes are very damaging and hurtful — unless you’re classifying the types of people that vote for you. The amount of demographic analysis during this primary election season has been deafening, and seems highly antithetical to the mantras of both parties, but especially that of the democrats, the very party where the profiling is so unashamedly prevalent. I don’t know that I personally believe these types of predictions and analyses are inherently wrong, but it’s quite entertaining to see democrats who have traditionally opposed profiling or stereotyping of any kind flip 180 degrees and start spouting “old white woman” this and “young black guy” that. I thought we were supposed to have progressed beyond predicting the actions of a large group of people based on their race, education, religion, etc. I suppose that isn’t the case.
Furthermore, have the candidates examined the negative implications of some types of voter demographic analysis? Hillary Clinton seems to consistently tout her ability to draw the votes of blue-collar workers without a college education while Barack Obama draws the votes of college educated and white-collar democrats. If we can all agree that a college education increases your ability to make circumspect judgments (and I don’t think that’s too far a stretch or too much a generalization) then has anyone pointed out that those with poorer judgment consistently vote for Senator Clinton while those with better judgment vote for Senator Obama? I don’t endorse Barack Obama, but that seems to be the implication.
I’m also not asserting that anyone without a college education is unqualified to vote, but if you consider a college education valuable at all in making educated decisions then I don’t see any way around the logic of the preceeding paragraph. Why does nobody challenge Senator Clinton’s assertion that the unwashed masses choose her therefore she must be best? Actually, I know the answer to that question: Whether true or false it will probably alienate more voters/viewers/readers than it attracts.
A smart guy once said, “Democracy is three foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.” I guess sometimes it pays to control the foxes.
I believe Clinton’s point is to make Obama and his supporters seem elitist. Coinciding with the popular meme; that blue-collar America is the the real America the so called Heartland.
Now I do despise the crass characterizations used in demographically branding voters as much as you. But you cannot ignore there effectiveness or accuracy, nor the ability of politicians to exploit them and seemingly initiate conditioned responses among voters. Not to just pick on blue-collar America, but say “gas tax refund” and the so called blue-collar American salivates not knowing of the refunds utter pointlessness. Each group has there specific note for a conditioned response and politicians are virtuosos.