Winning Women in 2008

BlueSkirt (RedSkirt also here) focuses on Kimberley Strassel's recent WSJ article: "How the GOP Can Woo the Ladies". As Strassel points out, women amount to 60% of the Left's voters. More women vote, and more women vote Democrat. So the GOP always has its work cut out for it to attract women. Some of the Dems' old favorite issues are on the wane, as some of its most loyal voters have aged. And indeed, most of Dem frontrunner Hillary's support comes from Boomer women.

Reproductive rights? Well the Roe Effect has taken care of some of that and the years most of the rest--most feminists are post-menopausal, you might even say they are elderly. As a result the discourse has become a bit more reasoned--repealing Roe would only shift the debate to the states, not outlaw abortion. Resolution by legislators, not judicial fiat, would restore more democracy to the process and more likely come up with workable compromises. The Supreme Court has already begun this process, undoing some of the polarizing damage of Roe, which took the decision out of the hands of the people.

Family leave? Strassel makes the point well about unions' opposition to flex-time.

Domestic violence has dropped markedly and is flat for now, still a concern but not a raging issue.

(BlueSkirt's reference to white Republican men---sounds kind of racist and sexist to me, not to mention undemocratic---Republicans don't get to have an opinion? White males don't get to have a voice? They were elected after all. They got the votes. Where's the common humanity here? Doesn't Blue Skirt's fave Barack like to say we are all one country, blah, blah. Should I not vote for Barack because he doesn't look like me? Nope. I won't vote for him because I don't agree with him--he's a liberal. And I know I don't agree with him because he has gotten to express his opinion. It's called free speech. It should be for everyone. But I digress.)

Following are a few comments on the issues Blue Skirt cites from Strassel's piece. (My earlier post here.)

On wages, I don't concede that wage inequality is due to sexist bias--when adjusted to compare apples to apples there is little difference (more on that later).

The tax code: I don't concede that the tax code needs to be "fair". I think it should at least be efficient. If we ever get to an efficient system of taxation, then we can argue the merits of how high taxes should be, or whether the tax code should pick favorites. I agree some level of taxation is necessary at the federal level (primarily to provide for the national defense, something state and local governments can't do--everything else should be on the table), (sounds of outrage from BlueSkirt?) but I would much prefer a flat tax.

The tax code, especially the Alternative Minimum Tax, passed by the Democrat Congress some years ago to penalize a few millionaires, now hits most heavily on working married couples in high tax states. For example, a NYC cop and her schoolteacher husband.

Blue Skirt ignores the issue that married women often have a family to support.

Which brings us to another point---many of the high wage earners Blue Skirt wants to tax so heavily are supporting families---their children in turn will be supporting childless Boomer liberals (see Boomsday) through Social "Security" they will never see themselves.

Social Security is also unfair to working women who are married or divorced.

Tell me again BlueSkirt why the tax code is "fair" and should be made "fairer"?

Wage inequality: Myth about wage disparities debunked here. As far as Blue Skirt's stats that unmarried women are lowest on the pay scale-- are they younger? less educated? work less? work in risk-averse professions? The rest of the report she cites seems to bear this out.

Flexible work schedule: BlueSkirt:

Proceeding to Point 2, I concede that many women would like a more flexible work schedule. So would a lot of men, I’m guessing. In 2006, women were slightly less likely than men to be able to do so. However, this difference was largely attributable to race, wherein women of color were less likely than their White counterparts to have flexible schedules, controlling for other attributes.

I will only say that I would imagine a lot more women would enter the work force if flexibility was much more widespread. There are women who are on the margin---who would like to work but don't have to financially. They would, though, probably like to earn a bit more if they could have the flexibility they wish for their family. As far as economic insecurity, looks like the Fed is taking steps to remedy that. Irwin M. Stelzer with more on the Fed interest rate cut, and this:

It is not certain, of course, that the economy needed such a lift. True, there are signs that it is slowing. But just because a slowing doesn't feel quite as good as a speed-up, doesn't mean we are heading into recession. Retailers from Wal-Mart to Saks Fifth Avenue are doing well, consumers have not retired from the malls, profits in many sectors are in good order, and unemployment is low by almost any standard.

Health care: Well, this is a knotty issue and I welcome solutions. But the Dems' solutions always involve more government and they are part of the problem. Rich Lowry on Hillary's plan:

Because the private health-insurance market doesn't function properly, the government is left to pick up the pieces. But it is government policies that distort the health-insurance market in the first place. Ideally, people would pay for their own health insurance, the way they do with, say, auto insurance. But the tax code favors insurance that people get through their employers.

This creates all sorts of problems. Because employers pay for their insurance, for most people the costs of health care are essentially hidden. They have no incentive to shop around for cost-effective plans. Meanwhile, when people lose their jobs, they tend to lose their insurance -- exactly when they probably need it most.

This creates an expensive system that's anxiety-inducing for people who worry about losing their insurance. The way the system is set up makes it difficult and expensive for individuals to buy insurance, which is one reason why 47 million Americans are uninsured.

Clinton's plan would make this ramshackle system worse.

It would doubtless be more expensive and give Americans less choice. And you know the drill-- do we really want government healthcare with the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS? I don't think this is a women's issue except that women would probably be more in favor of portability so that health care wasn't tied to a job. Again, this goes back to flexibility. And women are more likely to be caregivers for their parents as well as their children, so choice and quality are important to them. Here's the newly privatized Karl Rove (gasps from the Left) on a market-based approach to health care.

But let's take the Unmarried Women's Agenda Survey (2/12/07) that the GQR polling firm published and BlueSkirt brings up. (GQR is a respected firm generally aligned with the Democrats.) When asked "What would you most like to see Congress achieve over the next two years? (1st choices)

Get out of Iraq 34%
Make healthcare more affordable 16%
Keep America safe from terrorism 11%
Improve education 7%
Raise minimum wage 5%
Make taxes fair for middle class 4%
Stop flow of illegal immigrants 5%
Make sure people have secure retirement 3%
Lower gas prices 3%
Preserve women's right to choose 3%

While these results reflect the fact that the Republicans lost the 2006 Congressional election, it does not seem that these results are that different from the population as a whole. The failure of the Democrat controlled Congress to make progress on any of these issues except for the minimum wage no doubt accounts for the approval rating for Congress of 27%. (RCP average). The results BlueSkirt reports are from prompted questions asked by GQR. GQR does not report on questions on illegal immigration, terrorism or the rest.

From a strictly political point of view of course, there is one key statistic about unmarried women---they are less likely to vote than married women.

And of course all this depends on which women actually vote. But I think usually both sides are looking for swing voters, who usually happen to be married women, as most unmarried women vote Democrat. (And Hillary needs to worry about that too. The Obama Girls' votes are fickle. Will they go for Hillary in a big way if she's the winner, as it looks like she will be, or will they stay home?) Hillary may also face a gender gap of her own, as men, and some women, may be less likely to vote for a woman for President, especially as national security will continue to be an issue. She hasn't distinguished herself recently when she had the chance. (And the Democrats are doing nothing to burnish their bona fides on that. I notice BlueSkirt doesn't want to talk about national security, which was one of the top issues Strassel cited.) As I recall married women swung W's way as security moms in 2004.

So the battle in 2008 will be for women on the margin. The choice embodied in a Republican ownership society is a good approach to win that vote. Women like choice, right BlueSkirt?