Zorro, father of Blicero, writes:

I have often seen on this blog site the following thought. Paraphrasing, it goes like this: I cannot understand why the southern, white, middle-class, lower-class voter votes for a Republican (party of the rich people) President when a Democratic (party of the caring people) President could do so much more for this person.

I seem to be always playing the devil's advocate in these discussions, but perhaps that is my personality.

Consider this person (substituting he/she for any he's or him's). He earns $30,000/year, has 2 kids, a pickup and a van, a house, and receives no direct federal aid. Consider that we are trying to appeal to this person directly, as a what-can-you-do-for-me person, not a it's-nice-to help-everybody person.

Consider the needs of humans in general. The first is food, then shelter, then sex. Will food be any cheaper, or easier to acquire under Democratic leadership? He has shelter. Will his next be both better and cheaper under a Democratic President? Will interest rates be cheaper? Will he be able to afford a better house?

I will skip sex because I know so little about it.

Will access to education be any better? Washington D.C, which is close to my home, has had an equally terrible school system from Carter through Reagan/Bush to Clinton to Little Busch. Under a Democratic President, there would be better early childhood education and subsidized day-care for this family, but the many educational programs for the physically/mentally/emotionally handicapped child does not statistically touch this family. Will the state universities be better or cheaper? Will universities, private and public, be any different? Will student loans be any cheaper or easier to acquire? Here is something to hang a hat on.

What are the other needs/desires of this family? This is where the analysis needs to be done. It is not as simple as Democrats are more nice. For example, Republicans have attached themselves to a fundamental form of Christianity. For Republicans, it is an effective strategy. This person can think that he is voting for a rock-ribbed, God-fearing, honorable man, one who would never lie, cheat, or steal. That this picture has no connection with reality is not the point. It is a connection that is very appealing to this average Joe or Josephine.

Another example is that, in general, the Republicans capture the law and order side of the scale. This kind of hang-em-high ideology is one that is appealing to a fundamentalist Christian, who is very heavy on an eye for an eye. It is not necessarily a mean or nasty outlook but is often more to assuage the anger of those who see criminals not called to justice or to give these people a sense of security of seeing the bad guys behind bars.

In order to appeal to this family, it is necessary to appeal directly to their needs, not merely state that we care and are the party of the poor. It is not enough to say that we help other people like you.

Please show me where I am wrong. I would like to put more into the positive side of appealing to this group of voters but am hard pressed to figure out exactly what to place on the scale.

This family needs to feel secure and to be given the hope of upward mobility for themselves and their offspring. Does the invasion of Iraq make them feel more secure or less? It is not an easy answer.

-Zorro, Father of Blicero