Mind the (Gender) Gap

This week, as the second presidential debate unfolded, as Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney sought to close the lead of President Barrack Obama among women, an unfortunate choice of words used in relating a story about his search for women to fill his cabinet as governor of Massachusetts set off an internet frenzy around the phrase "binders full of women".

Despite that, it appears Mr Romney has been able to narrow the gap with women in the key battleground states that will decide the election, although nationally, the gap remains sizeable. Around 1980 was when the women's vote swung in favour of the Democrat Party, and vice versa for men according to Ronald Ingleheart and Pippa Norris. They pointed out that

The emergence of the modern gender gap in America is due to the way that women moved towards the Democrats since 1980 while men moved towards the Republicans on a stable, long-term and consistent basis, thereby reversing the pattern of voting and partisanship common in the 1950s. 

They theorised that as women grew more educated, career-oriented and independent, they began to abandon their conservative leanings in favour of a more progressive message from the liberally-minded Democrats. In  every US presidential race since 1988, every single Democratic candidate has been supported by a majority of women voters up until Barrack Obama's election in 2008.

Meanwhile in the eight presidential elections since and including 1980, the Democrats have only twice secured a majority of male voters--in the 1992 and 2008 elections when the US economy was in bad shape.

Using the World Values Surveys, Ingleheart and Norris show how that the women's vote has consistently shifted more and more towards the more progressive parties in most advanced countries, some post-communist countries and a few developing nations.

By 1995, a solid pattern had emerged. The key to George W. Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 was in narrowing this gender gap, which Romney is emulating.

Meanwhile in Australia, PM Julia Gillard has changed the definition of misogyny by branding the leader of the opposition as such in parliament.

Her 15-minute speech which went viral worldwide helped to convince the Macquarie and Merriam-Webster dictionaries to adopt her usage of the word and define misogyny as "an intense prejudice against women" instead of merely "hatred towards women".

As the head of a Labor government, Ms Gillard has enjoyed a substantial advantage among women voters as the preferred prime minister of Australia, while here rival, Mr Abbott has enjoyed a similar advantage among men.

It was at the end of the 1990s that Australian voting patterns followed America in developing this gender gap, based on the analysis of Ingleheart and Norris back in 1999. This seems to have continued.

"Poverty is a choice"

That seems to be the conclusion of Charles Murray, a scholar of the libertarian American Enterprise Institute and author of the controversial book, Coming Apart which looks at the growing divide among white Americans from 1960 to 1910.

After asserting in the Bell Curve a book he co-authored with Richard Hernstein that it was their inherent lack of intelligence or IQ more precisely that reduced African Americans to the bottom of the social and economic ladder, he now claims that poverty among white Americans is a result of the decline of civic culture, a result of changing preferences rather than structural policy imbalances.

Back in 1994, the unknown civil rights lawyer Barrack Obama, as a guest commentator at NPR spoke plainly regarding Murray's work then, that

He's interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda ... With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it's artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell.

It doesn't seem as though there is a role for government either in closing the divide between upper middle class white Americans and their blue collar counterparts. According to Murray, the cure for this malady is for the wealthy "to drop their nonjudgmentalism and start preaching what they're practicing" (a case for cultural imperialism?). Perhaps, in Murray's policy brief, they deserve in exchange for exercising such noblesse oblige or civic duty tax cuts on top of the ones they already receive (?).

The person who could model this kind of behavior the best among the candidates is Mitt Romney. The introduction of the book comes at an opportune time as he recently stumbled over the issue of income inequality and as many independents within the party (blue collar teaparty Republicans) cast a suspicious eye at the 'Washington/Wall Street establishment' that he seems to represent. The 'non-Romney' candidates, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have all railed against these 'fat cats' and sought to capture the protest vote.

It turns out, these so-called elites share many of the religious and cultural preferences as the party base according to Murray (upper middle class whites more frequently go to church, marry and stay married for longer). Of course the recent research on happiness and income explains why that may be. In the end, Murray may have tried to establish a false causation here.

Given the stagnation of income and productivity in America, the 'choice' faced by ordinary Americans isn't the same as the one they faced in the 1950s when GDP and employment were rising. Consequently, people don't 'choose' to become poor because they have lost their work ethos; the lack of a work ethos comes as a result of people being poor or unemployed for an extended period of time.