Critics like to say that Political Science is a perfect example of an oxymoron, ranking right up with "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" as inherently a contradiction in terms.
But consider this. Science is the discipline of observation of phenomenon and then a rigorous attempt to explain the observations with an analysis. That is what a traditional political scientist does. Admittedly the profession is riddled with left-wing ideologues and apologists seeking to rationalize their agenda. But, if done properly and objectively, political science can be informative.
Take a look at these numbers:
White Men Can Jump Parties
After a momentary excursion and dalliance with the Democrats in 2008, white men are returning in significant numbers to the free market capitalist principles of the Republicans. The numbers are a result of scientific polling, meaning random sampling of a given population with rigorous methodology and valid questioning techniques.
The analysis concludes that white men, who hadn't embraced a Democratic presidential candidate in decades, voted for Obama as a reaction to the imminent economic melt-down of 2008. That seems reasonable.
Now after watching the governance run amok, they are returning to their roots. The reaction is predicted to be a landslide in November at least in terms of that demographic slice.
Does that pass the common sense test? It does for me. White men, for better or worse, tend to be higher educated, higher economic class, more firmly established in community and career, and more vested in family than minority men. When taxes go up, job opportunity goes down, government regulation increases, and the future is threatened by liberal policies they will be the first to notice.
Who will be the next significant demographic pool to shift? It would logically be the family pairing with the white men; the white women.
Is that racist? If the 2008 election teaches us anything it is that the electorate has taken a decidedly post-racial turn. The election of 2008 at the Presidential level was color-blind. A reversal of voting behavior must be accepted as similarly color-blind.
Is the preponderance of white males returning to conservative support significant in terms of election outcomes? Since the white population percentage in America remains the majority and since white males tend to vote in greater percentages than white females, yes it will be significant. Since all whites, regardless of gender are voters in higher percentages than minorities, it will be significant. Since Obama will not be at the top of the ballot, the race issue is rendered moot.
It will be about the economy, taxes, jobs, opportunity and the future of America. That's not voodoo. That's science.
2 comments:
Ras,
Don't know that I agree that "at the Presidential level was color-blind." IMHO, a large portion of the populace voted for him to prove they were not racist simply because they voted for a Black man. As you know I work for a school district and while most of my colleagues know I'm slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, but I still overhear many comments that seem to support this thesis. And this is at an ostensibly conservative small Texas town. Can't imagine what's being said in Chicago, New York or San Fran.
If your statement was intended to be facetious, well then....."Never Mind!
The fact that the electorate could vote for a black man and not spontaneously reject him based on color, even if it was compensation or avoidance indicated it was a color-blind election.
People can SAY who they vote for, but what the actually do behind the curtain is what counts. There was no "proof" they weren't racist, because the vote is confidential. They could have voted for McCain and said they voted for Obama.
Post a Comment