The Alpha-Alpha Male Strategy

Of all the tactics available to the Republican party to overcome the 12-point gender gap,* this would be… one of them.

UPDATE: A tweet from Ross Douthat suggests that it was supposed to be a joke, or at least retconned that way. NRO took the article down. (Good move.)

* A Fox News poll published August 9, 2012 shows 51% of women respondents supporting Obama and 39% supporting Romney in the upcoming Presidential election. See page 14, question 2.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

121 thoughts on “The Alpha-Alpha Male Strategy

    • Now if only Romney could make any inroads with Persons of Colour. I can see him going down and getting fitted for a Big Money Grille and a fat ol’ chain.

      I can see it now. Li’l Wayne, make way. It’s Big Willard in da house! Representin!

        Quote  Link

      Report

        • Poll question for single women: Would you prefer a Democratic president or a Republican husband?

          {In 2008, unmarried women, one of the nation’s fastest-growing demographic groups, were a key to Barack Obama’s presidential win.
          They broke for the Democratic senator from Illinois over Republican Sen. John McCain, 70 percent to 29 percent; married women preferred McCain, 50 percent to 47 percent.}

          http://m.npr.org/news/U.S./154940680

            Quote  Link

          Report

                  • Odd, Clinton was pretty pro-gay whereas Romney is toeing the hard anti-gay line. I hear that one of his minions participated in yanking even the idea of lukewarm support for civil unions out of the GOP platform a day or two ago. So much for the focus being on protecting the sanctity of marriage.
                    Also Clinton raised taxes and lowered deficits, two things Romney hasn’t come close to endorsing (though Obama hasn’t either mind).

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                    • On the gay thing, Clinton did Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and signed the Defense of Marriage act. The GOP would be happy with that status quo ante about now.

                      Clinton signed welfare reform. I’m not even going to litigate that one. The status quo ante will suit a Romney Administration fine.

                      As for Clinton’s neo-liberalism, no, President Obama’s heart is not into neo-liberalism. Bill Clinton was a friend of business and had no hard-on against “the rich.”

                      My point being—and I think it holds, Mr. North—is that aside from the pro-life angle, Mitt Romney is more in the Clinton zone that Barack Obama is.

                      And if you recall any of my previous writings, I’m not saying this for effect or election 2012 points. I have spoken well of Bill Clinton’s “neo-liberal” presidency for years. Disagreed on this or that, but Bill Clinton would beat Romney or Obama one-on one or in a three-way race. That’s just the fact.

                      [In a three-way race, Obama would come in last, needless to say.]

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Oh come on Tom, that’s sophistry. Clinton settled for DADT because he set out to make open gay service in the military and it blew up in his face. DOMA I’ll give you but he did it because of political expediency, not because his policies or personal beliefs approved of it. He certainly didn’t advocate for it. I do believe you that the GOP would like the status quo, when you’re losing as badly as the GOP is on a subject wanting to lock things the way they are is a rational strategy.

                      I think your point fails on multiple levels. Romney is hawkish and jingoish on foreign policy in a way Clinton never was (Clinton cuddled up to China for instance; Romney has promised to charge them with currency manipulation on day one AND invade Iran). Clinton never pursued the kind of ridiculous tax break based voodoo economics Romney has embraced (he raised taxes in case you forgot AND the world didn’t end). On social policies (all of them) Romney is pretty much Clinton’s opposite.

                      Clinton is a singularly talented politician (a lot more talented than Obama admissibly*) but on policy he and Obama are much closer than he and Romney. I find it a little odd that you are trying to tie Romney’s clunker to a Democratic Party president’s record. Then again I suppose since tying Romney to the President he most resembles (the toxic Bush Minor) that makes some strategic sense.

                      *I think Romney would come in last in a 3 way Obama Clinton Romney race if it were based on political talents. Obama doesn’t have the political skills of Clinton but he at least has principles. Romney has neither posessing as he does the Charisma of a run over cat and the principles of a weathervane.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • I’ll yield the DADT, Mr. North, but again, he quit on it quick. Clinton is quite the chameleon on plaid as well. I can easily see him being pro-life if the political weather required it.

                      Economically, he’s neo-liberal like Romney is and Obama isn’t. As for Romney’s saber-rattling, Clinton did his share with Iraq as well.

                      And implicit in the comparison was Romney’s flip-flops and political expediency as well, that he was pro-choice when the occasion called for it, and then of course there’s Romneycare.

                      Like Clinton, he’s simply not as ideological as the Current Occupant.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • North,

                      I still don’t understand Bill Clinton nostalgia. (Especially when people compare him favorably to Obama.)

                      What exactly did he do that was so admirable? The man caved or otherwise sold out every valuable plank in the Democratic policy agenda, including failing to pass universal health care, signing DOMA and DADT into law, and making welfare perhaps more fiscally sound, but substantially less effective in curbing poverty.

                      Add to it his foreign policy that needlessly antagonized Russia (and helped bring Putin to power), stood by idly while hundreds of thousands died in Rwanda and the Congo, more or less screwed the pooch during Yugoslavia’s disintegration and completely underestimated the threat of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden…

                      …and well, I’m not seeing it.

                      Other than just happening to be President during the dot com bubble’s hey-day, what was so great about William Jefferson Clinton?

                      Folksy charm?

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Nob, I’d say a good part of it was that he was extremely good at what he did and he did it for us (us being liberals of course). I was only just coming of age politically but I was aware enough to get considerable amusement from watching how he’d execute his various political maneuvers and reduce his republican opponents to spittle frothing rage. The towering self righteous incredulity of the right at this time that they were somehow losing to the man repeatedly during this, their age of ascension, was also awfully gratifying.

                      I can understand why you would not have liked Bill but as a centrist pretty much neoliberal I have deep policy fondness for him. Bill finally brought the Democratic Party into a more realistic position with regards to government finances. People to the left of me (you I suspect) would probably view this as regrettable but I think Clinton positioned the left in the role of adult in the room (though an argument could be made that by moving the Dems to the center Bill helped precipitate the Republicans plunge into right wing insanity). Personally I’m of the opinion that in the70’s and 80’s we started plumbing the practical edges of some left wing goals and Clinton was the one who brought the left back around into the viable practical middle. Keep in mind I’m a big fan of the Canadian Liberals who, under Cretchein, reigned in Canada’s leftward fiscally ruinous plunge and reformed the country into a more neoliberal economic dynamo (that’s also an awesome place to live). I think Obama is awfully close to Clinton on policy, he just lacks the political finesse to pull off being center left while convincing lefties that he’s one of them.

                      Tom, we’ll have to agree to disagree on some of these. Perhaps Romney is just lying through his teeth on domestic policy but if he’s a weathervane like he seems to be then that means he’d defer to Congress on what happens if he’s elected (and with Ryan as Veep that seems especially likely) so based on that we can presume huge tax cuts, deep cuts to safety nets, no movement on social security or medicare and sky rocketing deficits and defense spending.
                      I’d submit also that after the execrable terms of Bush the lesser that Republicans aren’t allowed to claim any benefit of a doubt when it comes to saber rattling. When you hear them kvetching about how Obama is finally extricating us from their morasses you get the distinct feeling that the right would love to plunge back into another middle ages backward country and spend billions chasing RPG and IED armed peasants around the rocks with helicopters and tanks.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • ,
                      more or less screwed the pooch during Yugoslavia’s disintegration

                      I was under the impression that he stepped in and ended the civil war after our European allies had screwed the pooch. I’m not very sympathetic to his acting unilaterally in the face of congressional opposition, but the outcome in the Balkans was superior to the situation at the time he got engaged.

                      I’m assuming you don’t have any particular preference for an intact Yugoslavia.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • Nob,

                      I think a lot of Clinton nostalgia comes from these reasons:

                      1. The economy was very good during the Clinton years . I think a lot of people were economically anxious even during the height of the Bush II housing bubble.

                      2. In hindisght, the culture wars seemed much calmer.

                      3. Politics seemed less gridlocked and hyperpartisan despite the 1994 Congressional Elections, the government shutdown, and the Impeachment farce.

                      Mainly I think it is nostalgia for the Clinton era economy

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                    • North – agreed on Romney being way more hawkish. He is nothing like Romney there. Economically they both have a clue, which is at least part of Tom’s point. As for Clinton being so singularly talented, I don’t buy it. He said he didn’t inhale, trotted out his wife doing health care reform, totally misread the Congress on DADT, and invited Republicans / Newt to treat him like a wimp in his first term. And let’s note that he failed to win 50% of the electorate in both presidential campaigns, which is the only way that he is “singular” as a President.

                      Nob – the good thing about Clinton (and I was no particular fan and still do not respect him as a man) was that he had good economic policy. He had Summers and Rubin, who knew what they were doing and convinced him to pursue fiscal prudence to bring down interest rates. Summers is still the smartest guy in the room most days of his life at Harvard no less. Rubin understood Wall St and the bond market. I don’t think he got much done on domestic policy (maybe welfare reform), but his economic policy worked. Even the tax increases were distinctly post-Reagan moves. He had the wind at his back for sure, but he didn’t screw it up and probably helped. If people think they can say the same about Obama’s policy, then they will be confused, but witness the ex-Obama supporters who know better: Jamie Dimon and now Mort Zuckerman. Businesses people know that govt regulatory and fiscal policy is stifling growth.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

  1. They can’t help themselves, can they? Over-zealous conservatives, I mean. If it wasn’t so toxic around these parts, I’d remind certain readers of Corey Robin’s thesis about the role SWM privilege plays in shaping conservative’s social and political views. But I won’t.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. This reads like someone attempting satire. I mean, sure, it also contains a handful of earnestly thought (or felt, anyway) positions (but satire does).

    The weirdness, for me, is how it reads like satire that someone from the other side would make.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I wouldn’t put it past certain factions to troll.
      But it’s one thing to put out McCain girls, and KNOW that they’ll get publicity because of “fair and balanced”.
      Getting the national review to publish something? Dat’s a bit tougher.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Well, to point out that Swift argued for baby food is to misunderstand Swift’s proposal. That said, I don’t have much of an idea what this person is *REALLY* arguing underneath the snark.

        I mean, you read “Modest Proposal” and you come away wanting to argue English/Irish policy.

        This? You read this and you think “no wonder Romney is behind in the double digits”… and then you look and say “yep, NRO” and you’re left merely thinking “what the aitch-iee-double-toothpicks?”

          Quote  Link

        Report

  3. It’s not like we’re going to forget it. C’mon, NRO coating patriarchy & elitism in a pseudo- (that is, what people who obviously don’t listen to any rap music think of when someone mentions it) hiphop culture* shell and actually thinking it’s an argument rather than a joke?

    (* – not that there isn’t plenty of wealth and sexual prowess worship in it: there is. But there’s a contextual difference between a held down on average groups cartoon-ish mimic of the ruling class & members and spokespersons of that class saying “yeah, we’re like that, yo!”. )

      Quote  Link

    Report

  4. I don’t believe NR has taken this article down, as it is their cover piece for the digital issue (I think their site is just experiencing unrelated down-time).

    Side note: I think Williamson generally writes interesting articles and is intellectually honest, though this could just be because he’s not a nut on culture like most of the NRO. But he has professed to writing a book for which the basic premise is “Profits are not deductions from the sum of the public good, but the real measure of the social value a firm creates. Those who talk about the horror of putting profits over people make no sense at all. The phrase is without intellectual content.“. Which is about as concise a definition of “glibertarian” as you can get.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • “But he has professed to writing a book for which the basic premise is “Profits are not deductions from the sum of the public good, but the real measure of the social value a firm creates. Those who talk about the horror of putting profits over people make no sense at all. The phrase is without intellectual content.“. Which is about as concise a definition of “glibertarian” as you can get.”

      How so?

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Three views of a corporation:

        1. The view held by stockholders.
        2. The view held by the workers.
        3. The view held by the customers.

        In a perfect world, 1 and 2 are closely aligned, making 3 happy by producing goods and services. But in R-Money’s world, 1 is the only viewpoint worth considering.

        It’s not Profits over People. That’s a silly, hurtful phrase. And it’s wrong, too, for the Glibertarian does care about people. The people who matter are the stockholders, but the Glibertarian really is a dense, short-sighted thing. You see, if we listen to the Glibertarian, we will be told 2 and 3 don’t matter and anyone who thinks they do is a Goddamn Socialist.

        Now in the real world, that is to say, the one where money’s actually made by convincing customers to fork over money to be delighted by excellent products and not by shitty stock manipulation or fucking the customers with melamine in the milk, 3 is the most important viewpoint.

        So now you know. When folks say Profits over People, conservo-libertarians, tell ’em an old Liberal taught you how to fight back that weepy ol’ shibboleth. Glibertarians do care about people. Just not workers. Or customers.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Blaise pretty much nailed it, though I’m not as convinced about the necessary distinction between “profits over people” and “stockholders over everyone else”. The fact that Williamson cannot even conceive of an instance where a profit-driven firm has negative social value is astounding, and it explains why he genuinely thinks flaunting wealth in such a cartoonish way could ever be an admirable trait.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  5. Williamson would have been better off going the Domenech route and just stealing a PJ O’Rourke piece instead of trying to write one himself. It’s like when R. Emmett Tyrell tries to channel H. L. Mencken, and you realize that a random Neanderthal Man would be better at it.

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *