ABCs of GOP Appeal to Women

Kimberley Strassel, WSJ on the Democrats' outdated approach to the "women's vote", attracting most of their support from Boomer women and older. This opens up a huge opportunity for Republicans to go after younger women, and married women, most of whom are concerned about the same top issues as men---national security, health care and the economy:

Here's an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about "inequality" in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn't the male boss; it's the progressive tax code.

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?

This is an important point, as younger women have shifted away from the rigid, cheerless, old feminist mantras and toward a more mellow, flexible, family-centered lifestyle. And Strassel points out the the Dem alliance with unions is the biggest obstacle to flex-time in the workplace, which would be enormously beneficial to women who would prefer comp time to overtime.

Republicans like to approach issues with across the board free market appeal, trumpeting individual empowerment. This dovetails neatly with the ownership society agenda, which is being advanced at least in part by major Republican candidates. Fred Barnes:

As Karl Rove has noted, Republicans need a big idea. The best available is the one Mr. Bush abandoned: ownership. Allowing private investment of payroll taxes for Social Security would only be a start. An Ownership Society would allow individual Americans, rather than government, to control how and where their health care, public education, 401(k) and IRA funds are spent.

Portability of health care would be immensely attractive to women and remove some of the worry about their children's coverage as well. Another issue is Social Security, which is discriminatory towards women, and blacks, as presently constituted. Personal accounts and the just the simple and safe wonder of compound interest would do wonders for retirement security if we could agree on overdue reforms.

Note as well the 9/11 generation, young men and women alike. There is some speculation that military moms may be the next swing vote for 2008, following upon soccer moms and security moms. The thought is that they are by and large disenchanted with the war and would go for Democrats. We shall see. I would think Democrats' clear disdain for our military and default mode of betrayal of our troops would stop that supposed shift in its tracks.

Clearly Republicans have much to offer women--they just need to step up and spell it out.