The Race to the 2004 Elections by Randall L. Dickinson

[Brent]

Thanks to Randy Dickinson of our NY affiliate Fathers and Families for sending this piece published in the Press Republican, Plattsburg, NY. Randy hits the nail right on the head when discussing what's really on the minds of Dads this election cycle.  

Politicians should recognize that fathers, and those who are concerned for them, are not to be taken for granted and could well be the decisive "swing voters" at every level in this election year.  FYI, related items are at the bottom.

ACFC - http://www.acfc.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Race to the 2004 Elections by Randall L. Dickinson

Ellen Goodman, syndicated columnist for the Boston Globe, writes that "the Democrats need to appeal to more men in 2004".  More specifically, she says, "it's the so-called NASCAR Dads" ("NASCAR Dads attractive this election", Mon., 3 Nov. '03).  Borrowing from pollster Celinda Lake, who originally coined the term, she describes the NASCAR dad "as the blue collar family man who's been hurt by the economy, watched jobs shipped overseas and his brother shipped out to Iraq".

Apparently, while those among us of more advanced intellect and sophistication - you know, Ms. Goodman's kind of people - are sufficiently enlightened as to make their votes pretty much a sure thing (and, of course, implicitly understood as being included in this group are all those with "the XX chromosome on [their] DNA pickup"), it is the blue collar working classes, who presumably live in trailer parks and occupy their time with such quaint and charmingly simple activities as watching professional football and NASCAR races (John Edwards' "ordinary people"), that are either too ignorant or too stupid, or both, to vote Democratic.

That hasn't always been the case; he was once a Democrat, until he began to backslide, and strayed from the flock to become a Republican.  "He may be up for grabs," though.

Offer him enough bread and circuses, and the Democrats just may be able to encourage him to return to the fold, once again. The arrogance expressed in this perspective is breath-taking. Ms. Goodman might want to ask herself if she doesn't think that, perhaps, it's not this very elitist attitude, itself, that is largely responsible for driving Bubba and the boys to the other side in the first place and that has transformed them into the next block
of swing-voters.

Moreover, Ms. Goodman's attempt to describe the NASCAR Dad and what his issues might be demonstrates a degree of perceptual inertia that lends new meaning to the term paradigm paralysis.  Indeed, it only serves to confirm how pathetically and hopelessly out of touch the press/media, as well as the political parties and their representatives, have become with the currents of social change taking place all around them. Ms. Goodman confesses that she knows nothing about NASCAR or the even more popular professional football.  

This, she explains, is why she has chosen not to run for president herself.  She might also want to re-assess her qualifications for speaking for male voters and defining for the Democratic Party  which issues may or may not be presumed to resonate with them.  After all, does anyone really harbor any illusions about the reactions likely to result from any attempt by a male journalist to describe what the female political animal really wants?

The truth is that, in their single minded attempt to appear sensitive to "women's issues", the press/media seems to have made the presumption that men simply have none.  In their frenzy to appeal to the all-important "female vote", the political parties have sent an unmistakable message to men that their votes can be either taken for granted, or that they simply don't count.  In their commitment to "political correctness", the conventional wisdom holds that men and their issues simply aren't.  As former Congresswoman and feminist icon, Patricia Schroeder, once stated during the now infamous "Tailhook" scandal, "They just don't get it".

Here's a hint; it ain't about professional football and/or NASCAR. It ain't the economy, either, stupid , or where the jobs may or may not be going, or taxes, or health insurance, or terrorism and the war in Iraq. Here's a message for both Democrats and Republicans, alike -as well as for the various "third parties" looking for a plank or two to add to their political platforms.  

The key to an understanding of men's issues and any political capital that may lie there can be found hidden in Ms. Lake's description of the NASCAR Dadas the "blue collar family man" and in Ms. Goodman's admonition not to forget the "dad" in the NASCAR Dad. For the most part, the issues described by Ms. Goodman are pretty much the traditional "bread and butter" issues that have a certain general appeal regardless of gender.  

A point often overlooked, however, is that they derive much of their significance principally in the context of the institution of the family and from their importance in making it possible to provide for and protect our families.  Separate a man from his family, and you have suddenly removed a good deal of any incentive for him to continue caring about these issues.

The reality for men today is that the definition of the family as being comprised principally of a mother and her children has become so deeply entrenched in our social consciousness that the role for fathers in the family and the lives of their children has increasingly been marginalized to the fringes - except, of course, for their "economic" obligations to the family, you know, "just send money".  

The corresponding ideology reflected in both parties offers precious few alternatives as a political home for men.  The result is that, today, the most dangerous decision a young man can make - the decision that, above all others, will expose him to the greatest risk (better than a 50 percent probability) that he could wind up losing everything, including, in certain instances, even his life - is the decision to marry and begin a family. Neither Ms. Goodman nor anyone else should deceive themselves, however, that recent attempts by Democratic candidates to portray themselves as solid family men had anything remotely to do with an attempt to appeal to male voters.  Note that the comments to which Ms. Goodman referred in her column took place at a "forum on women's issues"; need more be said?  

Does anyone really believe that politicians waxing sentimental about the satisfaction they have derived through the years from their families and the pride and joy they have experienced from the privilege of raising their kids will resonate positively with men who have been ejected from theirs and whose status has been reduced to that of "visitor" and "check-book"?

Ms. Goodman quotes sociologist Arlie Hochschild as proclaiming that NASCAR Dads are, indeed, allowed to feel anger.  Apparently, according to Ms. Goodman, however, such license applies only if focused "on enemies abroad", or "the folks who duped him with their' Mission Accomplished' banner and their Enron economy".

Ironically, if a foreign power came to our shores and visited the same rain of terror and destruction upon our families that our own courts, social services agencies, and public policy "experts" do every day right here at home, while politicians from both sides of the isle turn a blind eye to their bungling incompetence and excesses, it would be considered grounds for a declaration of war.  Our women would demand it, and our men would be expected to simply "do their duty".

Yet when driven to rage by a system that currently has and routinely exercises the authority to eject them from their families, evict them from their homes, abduct their children, extort their financial resources, and confiscate their assets as a matter of public policy, and always "in the best interest of the child", men are simply diagnosed, as political dissidents in the old Soviet Union so often were, as having a psychological disorder and ordered to attend anger management courses - or, often, simply thrown in jail.  

How 'bout that, Ms. Goodman; are men permitted to be angry about that? Ms. Goodman is right about one thing; future elections are likely to involve, more and more, the politics of gender.  Those wishing to remain in the race, however, are well advised to consider that the contemporary politics of gender feminism and/or gender supremacy, which presumes that only "women's issues" have any legitimate claim to the political processes, will no longer be an asset; rather they will be a substantial liability.  

Indeed, they will need to begin embracing the rather novel concept of two genders, one of which having been largely absent from the political discourse, and each with issues equally deserving of consideration.

Recent simplistic attempts by the Democratic front-runners to appeal to male voters, as referenced in Ms. Goodman's column, will be seen as nothing more than political pabulum.  Reform of matrimonial and family law, confiscatory and punitive child support standards, Draconian domestic violence legislation, intrusive and coercive social services bureaucracies, paternity fraud, a man's "right to chose", men's health and education, etc. . these are but a few of the very real issues resonating with men in ever increasing numbers today. The parties and their candidates ignore them at their political peril.

Those with the courage and sense of fair play to incorporate these issues into their political platforms will be rewarded with a bountiful harvest of votes.  Any fear that, by doing so, they will risk losing their block of women voters only serves to further illustrate how totally invisible men have become on the political landscape.

It doesn't seem it should be necessary to point out that the men who's votes may hang in the balance are all members of families, each one consisting of a mother, and sisters, and aunts, and grandmothers; many have second wives or sweethearts; all of them, the last time we checked, are female, and all of them negatively impacted by the very same issues through their direct associations with the men in their lives - men, by the way, that they happen to love and care for.

-- Randal L. Dickinson resides and works in the Albany, New York area and is Vice President of the Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc.  The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York, Inc. is a not-for-profit public information, education, and lobbying organization dedicated to the advocacy of family related issues and to preserving the relationship between fathers and their children.  Its national  affiliate is the American Coalition of Fathers and Children.

 Mr. Dickinson can be reached at (518) 899-3302, e-mail: [email protected].

Published as "Issues that resonate with men" by Randall L. Dickinson on Sunday, December 21, 2003 in the Press Republican (Plattsburg, NY).

Related items:

Single Women May Decide 2004 Election ["...key demographic, like the NASCAR dads of 2002 or..."]

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1669

by Allison Stevens -- Women's eNews, 09 Jan 04

NASCAR Dads attractive this election

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=187991

by Ellen Goodman -- Times Union, 10 Nov 03