Opinion
Quién es más macho? Republicans Losing Macho Cred
Quién es más macho? Republicans or Democrats?
One big advantage Republicans have long held over Democrats is the macho card. Republicans are seen as more manly, they're better protectors. This doesn't just translate into a reputation for being better at national defense (although Obama just made pretty big strides on that front for Democrats), it can also translate into being better stewards of the economy; dad manages the check book.
The modern stereotype, Rs as masculine and Ds as feminine, can be traced back the early 1970s when the Democrats ran a dove, anti-war Democrat George McGovern, against "silent majority" Republican President Richard Nixon. Nixon crushed. The GOP completed the lock on machismo, soon after, when Ronald Reagan won with "Reagan Democrats," ie, when the traditional working class lunch pail crowd went in droves for Reagan over the emasculated Jimmy Carter.
The framing has persisted ever since as Democrats (their feminine image compounded in the '90s with all the oversensitive PC stuff) have tried in vain to overcome it. There was the Dukakis tank debacle in 1988 and John Kerry trying to play up his swift boat cred. (My, that worked.)
Obama won obviously, but there was that arugula moment.
However, I think the Republicans, with such a public emphasis on religious values, are starting to lose hold of the macho card. Yes, I get that religious conservatism dovetails with social control over women—which can be part of the macho card—but really, when you get right down to it: All the church nanny state stuff is kind of prissy. Reagan Democrats just don't want to be told, metaphorically, that they've got to wake up for church on Sunday morning.
This jumped out at me recently surveying the Republican 2012 hopefuls. Social conservative scolds such as Rick Santorum just come across as whiny. And while personally, I don't care if Romney and Huntsman are Mormon, I'm telling you, in the same way that people are uncomfortable with pointy headed Democratic professor types, they're equally squeamish about Mormons. The common denominator: Professors and Mormons are not macho.
Certainly, while it helps Democrats to play tough guy, it can also help Republicans to soften up their image (see Rob McKenna). But at a fundamental level, the self congratulatory, melodramatic religious pride on the political right is well, kinda "gay."
One big advantage Republicans have long held over Democrats is the macho card. Republicans are seen as more manly, they're better protectors. This doesn't just translate into a reputation for being better at national defense (although Obama just made pretty big strides on that front for Democrats), it can also translate into being better stewards of the economy; dad manages the check book.
The modern stereotype, Rs as masculine and Ds as feminine, can be traced back the early 1970s when the Democrats ran a dove, anti-war Democrat George McGovern, against "silent majority" Republican President Richard Nixon. Nixon crushed. The GOP completed the lock on machismo, soon after, when Ronald Reagan won with "Reagan Democrats," ie, when the traditional working class lunch pail crowd went in droves for Reagan over the emasculated Jimmy Carter.
The framing has persisted ever since as Democrats (their feminine image compounded in the '90s with all the oversensitive PC stuff) have tried in vain to overcome it. There was the Dukakis tank debacle in 1988 and John Kerry trying to play up his swift boat cred. (My, that worked.)
Obama won obviously, but there was that arugula moment.
However, I think the Republicans, with such a public emphasis on religious values, are starting to lose hold of the macho card. Yes, I get that religious conservatism dovetails with social control over women—which can be part of the macho card—but really, when you get right down to it: All the church nanny state stuff is kind of prissy. Reagan Democrats just don't want to be told, metaphorically, that they've got to wake up for church on Sunday morning.
This jumped out at me recently surveying the Republican 2012 hopefuls. Social conservative scolds such as Rick Santorum just come across as whiny. And while personally, I don't care if Romney and Huntsman are Mormon, I'm telling you, in the same way that people are uncomfortable with pointy headed Democratic professor types, they're equally squeamish about Mormons. The common denominator: Professors and Mormons are not macho.
Certainly, while it helps Democrats to play tough guy, it can also help Republicans to soften up their image (see Rob McKenna). But at a fundamental level, the self congratulatory, melodramatic religious pride on the political right is well, kinda "gay."
