For most of its history, the Democratic party knit together a coalition of northern liberals and white southerners through an explicit, sustained racial animus towards blacks. In the twenty first century, with whites set to become a minority within a few decades, the Democrats have a new group squarely within their crosshairs: white heterosexual males. In the coming election cycles, anti-white male rhetoric and defacto anti white male legislation will become more and more crucial to sustaining the new Democratic coalition.
The existence of this strategy is hardly up for debate; witness how, in the mainstream media, liberal-leaning commentators throw around the heretofore innocent adjective “white” as an epithet to describe people or policies that are uncongenial to the liberal program. Legislators who oppose federal funding for the abortion factory Planned Parenthood are ‘white men trying to get in your vagina.’ Senators who had the temerity to question the judgement of then nominee Justice Sotomayor, who dismissed the discrimination claim of the New Haven firefighters in a two sentence ruling that was later overturned by the Supreme Court, are supporting “white male exceptionalism and privilege.” George Zimmerman, child-killer, becomes the white Everyman despite his community and self identification as Hispanic. The Republican party is composed of “elderly white people,” or is “92 percent white.” These assertions are offered without any follow-on remarks or conclusion. The party leadership is white and male, therefore… what exactly? The unspoken takeaway is that this state of affairs is somehow disreputable, that a white base is somehow illegitimate.
The strategy begs the question “why bother?” White men in the rust belt are an important demographic in the 2012 election and their economic interests (unionism, unemployment benefits) lie heavily in favor of the Democratic party. The answer is, that voters are not “dessicated calculating machines.” Contrary to Mitt Romney’s 47% assertion, few voters make a straightforward tabulation of their interests and then choose their party. Most Americans genuinely try to make political choices that are in the best interests of the country. If white males are the perpetrators of all sorts of Bad Things (racism, homophobia, anti-Islamic bigotry, misogyny) then legislation that is explicitly targeted against their interest can be rationalized as the moral choice, the choice in favor of the greater good even if it means sacrificing the welfare of one’s own in-group.
Generating a white male villain makes the sacrifice easier to bear. As coalitions become larger, mathematically they become more difficult to sustain. The marginal cost of a government program to attract the 10th group is much higher than the cost of attracting the first group, all things being equal. Right now single women, gays, Jewish-Americans, Hispanics, and Blacks are all reliable Democratic groups, brought together by a shared ideology based on redress from the government for real and perceived oppression at the hand of society at large. Just as southern whites supported the Democratic party against their economic interests pre-Civil Rights through anti-black sentiment, these present day groups can be made to support the party against their interests through anti-white male sentiment.
So what’s the solution? The easy answer seems to be that the GOP should diversify. But no matter how much diversity the party attracts, for the foreseeable future, the GOP’s base will remain Caucasian and somewhat male, which will therefore enable these sorts of Democratic attacks. With the left-wing control of the media, it will be difficult for GOP image makers to break out of the trap Democrats have set. The best solution is to roll with the punch. Rather than doubling the Hispanic vote, why not try to bump the white male vote five or ten points? If the GOP is successful, a increase of that magnitude will tip this election into Romney’s column. And why not? They’re going to be called racists anyway, might as well be racist winners.