Diverse Men

Ah, you probably thought I mean black men, since as we all know “diverse” has become a synonym for black. But no, today I mean something more, well, diverse. There are two articles in the Washington Post today that reveal little-noticed evidence of the pervasiveness of the gender gap in American politics.

The first dissects the Hispanic vote for president and finds — you guessed it — that President Bush’s gains over 2000 consisted primarily of male voters.

Among male Hispanics, Bush’s support rose from 34 percent in 2000 to 46 percent this time…. Bush support among women rose a statistically insignificant one percentage point, to 36 percent.

Other nuggets from the analysis: Protestant Hispanics gave Bush a clear majority. (Most Hispanics are Roman Catholic). And voters who asked to be interviewed in Spanish were less likely to be Bush backers — 36 percent, vs. 42 percent who did the interview in English.

Don’t these data (taken from the National Annenberg Election Survey) suggest that college admissions officers who give preferences to “Hispanics” paint with entirely too broad a brush? Don’t they also need to know whether a Hispanic applicant (however they determine that an applicant is Hispanic) is Protestant or Catholic, male or female, etc., and take care that all these categories are adequately represented?

The second article, by Scott Turow (which proves that as a political analyst, Turow is a fine novelist), does for old men what the first does for Hispanic men:

Almost all of Bush’s gains in 2004 can be accounted for by his success with one group — voters 60 and over, according to exit polls….

Why did Bush do so well with the over-60 crowd? Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International provided a further analysis that distinguished this age range from all voters. “The biggest difference,” he said, “is among men. The men in the 60-and-over group supported Bush by 60 to 39 over Kerry. Among all men they supported Bush by only 55 to 44.”

“Only” 55 to 44? Oh well, I suppose winning a group that makes up about half of the population by “only” 11 points is no biggie.

Turow goes on to say that this core group of Bush supporters was not only old men but “old fashioned” men, since they seemed to care a lot about gay marriage. The good news for Democrats, he claims, is that they’ll die off soon, although he doesn’t confront the possibility that the increasing numbers of new old men may have the same values.

UPDATE

Power Line also has a good discussion to the Turow article.

Say What? (5)

  1. Nels Nelson December 27, 2004 at 1:44 am | | Reply

    Gay marriage doesn’t seem to me an issue – unlike, say, taxation, welfare, or the death penalty, which relate to personal responsibility – on which people’s opinions would have much reason to change as they age. Forty years from now most old men will probably support gay marriage, and consider themselves progressive for doing so, while young people will regard gay marriage as a historical debate and condemn the old men for opposing the causes of that day. If the Republican Party always shifts its positions to reflect the values of those 60-and-over, while the Democratic Party always shifts its to reflect the values of those 30-and-under, I don’t see long-term how it changes much for the purposes of winning elections.

  2. John Rosenberg December 27, 2004 at 11:11 am | | Reply

    Nels – I think you’re right on target. People aren’t likely to change their views of gay marriage as they get older. Thus it will be interesting to see (for those still around at the time) whether most young and middle aged Repubs stick with their current views (I assume most are opposed) and also whether the Repubs as a party stick with their current position or change with the trend. I suspect the latter. That’s what happened in large part on civil rights, after all. (Though we shouldn’t forget that the 1964 CRA would not have passed without influential and wide Republican support and, hence, that the party position today is not very different fromt he party position in 1964).

  3. Richard Aubrey December 28, 2004 at 9:48 am | | Reply

    It takes getting older to learn not to trust activists on their ostensible goals.

    Once you learn that, you become (even more) conservative.

  4. KRM December 28, 2004 at 5:15 pm | | Reply

    [Post edited to insert/substitute euphemisms due to initial rejection for “questionable content”]

    Nels and John – I disagree. When I was young, I would have been all for “[two of the same kind] marriage”, along with the whole radically libertarian/individualistic “free [recreational reproductive activity]” and “recreational [pharmaceuticals]” and such that I supported. I would/do not support any of those things now. A large number of my friends are in the same boat as I (or perhaps more accurately, similarly switched from the liberal or libertarian boats to the social conservative boat). It can not be entirely discounted.

  5. Cobra December 28, 2004 at 7:18 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>Comments: Diverse Men

    Ah, you probably thought I mean black men, since as we all know “diverse” has become a synonym for black.”

    When was that announced? I must have missed that press conference. Is the desire for a homogenized society that great in today’s conservative movement?

    –Cobra

Say What?