This week, I began the first in a series of essays that I am writing for my senior project on electoral politics. The topic of my first essay is the so-called "age gap" in President Obama's electoral coalition. Obama, like most Democrats, performed exceedingly well among America's youth on Election Day. In fact, he took a larger share of the 18 - 29 vote than any previous Democratic candidate for president since 1980. However, Obama seriously underperformed among seniors. This discrepancy in support between seniors and adolescents is an emerging trend that some have dubbed, "the age gap." My essay intends to uncover its roots and potential consequences.
When I sat down to write my essay, however, I had trouble starting it. I wanted to begin it anecdotally.. but couldn't think of a fitting anecdote. I decided to skip the intro for the time being and start with some background information on the "gender gap," (a gap in party support between women and men that helped Clinton get elected in the 1990s) but soon I could see myself losing the original focus of the paper. Now I am in the midst of deciding whether I should make my essay strictly about the age gap, write a paper on both the age gap and the gender gap, or write two distinct papers about each. Either way, I'm glad I have so much to write about. Better this than having writer's block.
Luke, one interesting trend you might want to investigate: Republican candidates often run on "values" issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, guns) and then, when in office, legislate on economic ones that typically benefit big business. Bush's 2004 re-election bid is a prime example: ran on "values" but once reelected first up was social security reform. I'm sure you'll find lots of other examples.
Posted by: laszlo lowenstein | 09/30/2009 at 12:49 PM
Thanks, Laszlo, I agree. "Values" issues have always been a great way for conservative candidates to galvanize their base. However, once in office, they realize they're perhaps some of the most difficult issues to change. In the weeks leading up to the 2004 election, Bush campaigned vehemently against gay marriage. It helped turn out the conservative base in droves that year. And, naturally, upon becoming the first president to win a majority of the American public since his father in 1988, he declared a mandate to privatize social security. Thomas Frank expounded, quite cynically, on this phenomenon in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas?. He claimed the Republicans and their oil company CEO puppet masters used social issues to rally support, then, once elected, only concentrated on bringing wealth and contracts to the their corporate overlords. However, I do think Republicans at least try to make social change. They just often fail, because social issues are generally the most controversial. Let's not forget that several times during Bush's presidency, a constitutional ban on gay marriage was brought up in both chambers of Congress. Do I think that Bush could have stood more strongly behind the amendment? Yes, I think he hesitated and wavered too much on. But the Republican Party as a whole did try and ban gay marriage.
Posted by: Luke | 10/01/2009 at 06:22 PM
I think you're giving them too much credit. Most members of Congress will run on values but don't really care about legislating it unless it wins them more votes. The ban on gay marriage would never have made it past the Supreme Court and everyone knew it - it was a diversionary tactic. The authors who are reporting on this stuff aren't the cynical ones, it's the political leaders that are cynical.
Posted by: laszlo lowenstein | 10/05/2009 at 03:43 PM
Took me time to read all the comments, but I enjoyed the article.
Posted by: buy essay | 12/04/2009 at 05:12 AM