|
Is it wrong to hope Republican candidates follow Kimberley Strassel's recent advice on wooing women voters, or as she likes to say, 'lady voters,' to the letter? I really hope not, because I think she's unlocked a partial recipe for Democratic electoral success.
Here's Strassel:
Undoubtedly quite a few [women] do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren't their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers
Strassel gets a few things right here. She's correct to point out that when given a list of issues and asked to identity the most important issues, women, like men, overwhelmingly choose the Iraq war and healthcare. In a recent survey of women voters (pdf), 60% of unmarried women identified the Iraq war as their top priority, and 37% chose health care (p.11).
Problem is, from here Strassel makes a sharp turn to the right, and identifies revising the progressive tax code as the solution to these problems.
Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job. This is the ultimate in "inequality," yet Democrats constantly promote the very tax code that punishes married working women. In some cases, the tax burdens and child-care expenses for second-earners are so burdensome they can't afford a career. But when was the last time a Republican pointed out that Ms. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?
Lets leave aside for a moment what the tax code has to do with the Iraq war. Most women are single (pdf, p2), not married. And given that single women vote overwhelmingly Democratic (pdf, p3), (62% voted for Kerry) they are the very voters Republicans need to begin to attract if they hope to improve their standing with single women. There are just not enough married white women to make up the difference.
So I can't feel too sad that Strassel's proposal will do nothing to address their concerns. Actually, just being married isn't enough to get this hypothetical benefit either. You need to be married to someone in a higher tax bracket. And the Democratic candidates are already way ahead of her on child care. All of our major Presidential candidates have a plan for universal Pre K.
We won't even talk about how she goes on to blame the lack of flex-time opportunities on unions, or to suggest that health savings accounts are the solution to the health care crisis. Those solutions are not going to fly with men or women, married or unmarried. And, I have a sneaking suspicion that blaming Hillary Clinton for keeping women ladies in the kitchen probably won't help much either.
But more to the point, if Republicans continue to pretend that single women do not exist, I think we're in business, electorally speaking.
H/T Amanda at Pandagon
|
STATE BLOGS
