Got your attention? Good. My research shows that the wives of intransigent, close-minded, die-hard Republican women are lying to their husbands about who they are going to vote for in November. They are cheating in their hearts, and may feel a little guilty about deceiving the true believer they consort with, but they are resolute about voting their conscience. I've met them. I've talked to them. This is a real phenomenon.
Misrepresenting one's politics beliefs to placate a reactionary spouse is as emotionally stressful as having an affair. Some of these women are not entirely sure that Jesus won't punish them for their errant ways. Let me share their angst with you.
In my maiden post yesterday, I reviewed anecdotal evidence that there is perceptible movement away from McCain toward Obama, and that it was all one way. There is no sign of any movement away from Obama toward McCain. That was the whole point. Part of the exposition was to speculate about why this is. I listed some factors that I think are in play because my research subjects mentioned these issues as part of their own inner discourse that they were describing to me.
So, why did half of the comments that were posted in the brief period between when I clicked the Publish button and when I returned from my dinner charge that I was unfairly stereotyping women? One guy thought it ridiculous that I would maintain that many women, especially those married to patriarchal Neanderthals, meekly vote as their husbands order them to vote. He thought this because he doesn't know anyone like that. Well, I do. One gal didn't seem to think that women ever did that. Really? None?
Unlike these folks, I don't generalize about the population at large based solely on my interactions at the progressive political fundraiser garden party held in the basement of the Unitarian church next to the university campus. I'll go to events like that and talk to people, but I spend a lot more time in the bar of the working class fraternal lodge I belong to so I can drink cheaply, sing karaoke and gab. I talk to neighbors over the back fence. I talk to anyone who will talk to me, including nut-ball right-wingers. And, I also talk to their wives while the knee-jerk blowhards are taking their turns croaking out Englebert Humperdinck tunes for the thousandth time. Much of the time the women report their political beliefs are the same as their husband's because he is right, and Reverend Falwell (or, Hegge, etc.) says that she should "honor her husband". Yes, these women do exist. Sometimes they furtively confess that they secretly vote to the contrary, and that I should never reveal that fact to him. They tell me that so I will drop the subject when he returns to the table after his song. Tranquility is preserved in the these households by sustaining the husband's delusions.
Another type of comment that made me chuckle was the moral outrage of those who chastise me for the horrid notion that the balance may be tilted toward Obama and away from McCain in some woman's mind because the senator from Illinois is a tall, lanky, handsome, well-muscled young man with a sensuous mouth and the senator from Arizona is a stumpy, crotchety, cantankerous, old fart who started going bald at least 16 years ago and went ballistic when his rich trophy wife kidded him about it. Obama is nice and studly; McCain is mean and a geezer. So what?
Yes, it's not PC to say that sexuality is a real factor in political choices, but we know it's true. (e.g., JFK v. Nixon in 1960 and Clinton v. Bush in 1992) There have been studies on it, for Crissake. This would be a big factor for men if both candidates were women, but they are again, both men, so sex appeal doesn't matter as much for them unless they are gay. (BTW, I haven't yet met a gay man who supports McCain, even though I have met more than one gay men who is a Republican.)
Let's get back to why a woman might vote for the taller, sexier man more easily than the shorter, wrinkled, bad-smelling one. It's advertising psychology, just like I studied in business school. Nevertheless, I didn't give this notion much attention until I heard the same thing from three women who had shaken hands with Bill Clinton. They told me that they felt as though they were about to melt when he took their hand in his. For a fleeting moment, they would have done anything he wanted. Yes, they said that.
One of these women, my wife at the time (1992), said flat out that she would have sex with him if she could. That's powerful stuff. I asked her if that adulterous lust was a factor in her preference for Bill over my choice at the time, Jerry Brown. Her response was, "Isn't he gay?" The issue unresolved, we set out on our excursion to the Democratic Party convention in our state. We were both delegates, she pledged to Clinton, I to Brown. No, no, no. Sex appeal never has any role in politics, does it? Idealistic women and men would never let their less lofty motives tinge their sober, rational judgment. Right.
If Tweedledum and Tweedledee were the female candidates from which I had to choose, and I didn't care which set of policies were enacted, I would unhesitatingly vote for the one who was more attractive to me. If the policies did matter in the slightest, I would vote for a Golda Meir look-alike over Angelina Jolie's stunt double. That's the key to it: "All other things being equal..." Is it so wrong to muse that sex appeal might be a tie-breaker in someone's mind?
I have never heard such shameless willingness to be had like that about any other politician except John Kennedy. I have yet to hear any woman say that her preference for Obama is based on her fantasy of having him mount her or submit to being fellated. I've heard more than one say that he was "cute". No one says that about Johnny boy. What is that thing on his left cheek, anyway?
Comments about my blatant stereotyping and patronizing sexism miss the issue I was trying to talk about as much as comments that praise or deride Obama or McCain. I'm not talking about how many people like either candidate or why they should or should not. Others are beating the hell out of those topics and addressing them much better than I would ever attempt to do. I'm pointing out that preferences are changing. Republican support is diminishing and this crumbling voter base is not evenly distributed among demographic groups. Why is that? I threw out a few theories and got a little feedback, but nothing that addresses the changing of voter preferences.
The fault is mine for not tersely framing the question. I should chuck everything above, but being enamored of my own prose, I cannot. Let's do this: We'll have a poll to show how people's preferences have changed over the course of the campaign.