Ruth Rosen: The Marriage Gap Between Dems and Repubs ... And How It Could Decide the ElectionRoundup: Historians' Take
[Ruth Rosen, professor emeritus of history at the University of California and former columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle, is a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute and author of The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America (Penguin Putnam).]
Last winter, newspapers across the country publicized the startling fact that 22 million single women--including those never married, divorced, separated or widowed--simply didn't bother to vote in the 2000 presidential election."Women's Voices. Women Vote" (WVWV), the nonpartisan project that released this focused poll data, quickly dubbed these voters"Women on Their Own."
Had they voted in 2000, these voters would have sent Al Gore to the White House. Why? Because these women, many of whom are mothers, feel greater economic insecurity than married women. Single women also tend to be more progressive about social issues and are deeply concerned about improving the quality of public education, gaining access to healthcare, raising the minimum wage, demanding equal pay for equal work and protecting Social Security for their retirement.
The real story of this presidential election, then, is the widening Marriage Gap--the difference between how married and unmarried women vote--and what the presidential candidates have or have not done to mobilize these 22 million women.
Political analysts naturally expected that both presidential candidates would woo these women voters with a slew of seductive promises.
But that's not what happened.
Instead of addressing the everyday security needs of"women on their own," both candidates pandered to (largely married)"security moms" who were supposedly obsessed by the prospect of terrorist attacks. As Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg pointed out in September, unmarried women have seen the election as"dominated by a discussion of the war on terrorism and security."
During most of the campaign, neither of the candidates addressed this huge demographic bloc. True, John Kerry and John Edwards went on talk shows popular with women, but they talked about how they would fight terrorism. And yes, Bush's website has a section called"W Stands for Women," but it does not address concerns these women view as critical to their lives. It was only during the last few weeks of the campaign that Kerry rolled out a new stump speech that directly addressed women's economic security.
As it turned out,"security moms" proved to be more of a soundbite than an actual demographic group."Unlike the soccer or security moms," Greenberg recently told me,"these 22 million [single] women are not a fake group. They are 20 percent of the electorate, and their economic marginality makes them a huge demographic and voting bloc."
"They are cynical," said WVWV co-director Chris Desser,"and needed to be persuaded that their voice matters. They don't believe politicians understand or will address their concerns. In fact, nearly one-third of unmarried women polled said their main reason for not voting is that they believe their lives will not improve, no matter who is elected."
The first two debates did nothing to change that cynicism. Consider what happened when PBS moderator Gwen Ifill asked Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards how they would address the growing epidemic of HIV/AIDS among heterosexual African-American women. Cheney said he hadn't heard about the problem; Edwards evaded the question and discussed Kerry's health plan.
During the third debate, Senator Kerry finally spoke directly to these 22 million women when he promised to protect Social Security, vowed to provide health insurance by ending Bush's tax cuts for those who earn more than $200,000 and pledged to raise the minimum wage, now at a deplorable $5.15 an hour, so that some 9.2 million women would earn an extra $3,800 a year. He also criticized the pay gap between men and women, expressed support for the principle of affirmative action and vowed not to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who would undo a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion....
comments powered by Disqus
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- Inside story finally told of the young US diplomat who cracked the case of the murder of 4 nuns in El Salvador in 1980
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges