Why White Men Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Vote

EMAILPRINT

Just take a look at Romney HQ…

There are many factors being attributed to President Obama’s victory Tuesday night — great ground game, Romney’s incessant flip-flopping, the “47 percent” comment, rape-defending Republicans, the Latino vote, the women’s vote, the youth vote, the black vote —  but there is only one reason being offered for why Mitt Romney came so close to becoming the next president: white men.

White men, and particularly older white men, were the only major demographic group to support Governor Romney over President Obama in great numbers, with over 60 percent of them voting for the former governor. Without their support, the election would’ve resulted in an Obama landslide.

Since Tuesday, everybody, including Republicans, has been noting the changing composition of the American electorate, and the declining percentage and influence of Caucasian males, a trend that is only going to continue and accelerate. In other words, white males are going to increasingly dwindle in relevance in ensuing elections, even as they desperately try to cling onto power and the “America” that they remember and fear is slipping out of their grasp.

That’s why I propose that we just put them out of their misery right now and declare that from this moment on, White Men Can’t Vote!

Whoah! Let me assert right here that I myself am a white male, and a middle-aged one at that. And even though I throw my lot in with the minority of my ilk — that is, I vote Democratic — I am willing to forgo my ballot and “take one for the team” if we can be removed en masse from the voting rolls.

How can I make such a blatantly outrageous, undemocratic suggestion?  Let me put it thusly:

It’s unbecoming. Nobody likes a bitter, sore loser. As we white men try to stave off the inevitable influx of immigrants, minorities and uh, everybody else, we increasingly resemble a grossly over-paid aging athlete who refuses to retire gracefully, even though he’s hurting the team and impeding its future. Far better to step aside and be admired for our selflessness than to fight a losing battle till the bitter, bitter end.

It would dramatically alter the political debate. Instead of endlessly revisiting the same fights over capital gains, estate taxes, and a host of other issues pertinent mostly to white men, denying us the vote would enable the country to liberate itself from these old, hoary debates and turn its attention to the issues specifically challenging those who will have an increasingly large stake in the nation’s well-being.

We had a good run. For much of the country’s history, white men were the only group that could vote. Karma has caught up with us. It’s time to turn over the keys to the country to the next wave. As mentioned, most Republicans acknowledge that demographically speaking, time is not on their side, and for their party to survive it needs to attract women, youth, and minorities. But what’s the biggest impediment to doing this? White men! As long as this long-in-the-tooth group hangs around trying to “decide” how to appeal to others, it doesn’t stand a chance. The party needs to decisively clear out its “dead wood” and let whatever next-generation of pro-business / fewer regulations sympathizers fill its vacuum, infusing it with a new wave of energy, enthusiasm and direction.

And white men who still bristle at this idea: face it, we’re on the losing side of history. But, this being a democracy, we can’t just disenfranchise white men by fiat. It’s only fitting that we get to vote on it. So how about it, men? Let’s go out with a bang, a big hurrah, and vote ourselves out of voting. Either way, it’s the last time our vote will really matter.

About Stan Sinberg

Stan is an award-winning newspaper columnist, radio commentator, and features writer whose humor has appeared in everything from the NY Times to WSJ and MAD Magazine. Stan is a native New Yorker living on the west coast. His website is www.stansinberg.com and you can email him at stan@stansinberg.com or follow him on Twitter @ssinberg1
Posted in: Election, Politics
  • KMFDM72

    I wonder how the author would explain his article to a young white boy?

    • Eva Arevuo

      The article is supposed to be satirical. No offense intended.

      • gwallan

        Quite a bit taken. Only a few days ago my country spent a few moments remembering those who, among other things, ensured all of us could vote. Many of them were white. ALL of them were men or boys.

      • TCM

        Many a truth is said in jest.

      • Mark Neil

        Would you find it funny if it was a woman saying women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, since they overwhelming let Obama in? Obama has thrown men in general, white men in particular, under the bus to the feminist agenda his whole presidency. He’s refused to acknowledge a proposal for a white house council for boys to men, filed by many of those who filed a proposal for the white house council for women and girls which took him almost no time at all to approve. He has insisted that VAWA continue to use gendered language which excludes men, with the exception of those covered under the gay exception clauses. 80% of those who lost their jobs in 2008 were men, but when delivering a stimulus package to address those 2008 job losses, he caved to feminist lobbyists and provided a huge boost to those 20% women. Men make up just over 40% of post secondary students (and it’s projected to drop further) and Obama is pushing to make that number even smaller still by targeting the only vocations men still attend in any number, STEM fields. But of course, his plan has no intention of applying those same title IX criteria to vocations dominated by women in order to push the number of male attendee’s up. No, no, no, we can’t have that. And there is so much more. So tell me, why is it you expect us to believe this is satire? Is it because it is easier to promote an idea when it starts as a joke, get the idea out there, then start pushing to make it a reality?

        And now we’re getting a sermon from this reverend uncle Ruckus of the white man here and we’re supposed to laugh it off? I don’t think so.

      • LanceSmith

        And yet I’m sure if the genders were reversed plenty of women would be offended.

  • Michael

    So, because white males, aren’t the largest demographic portion in the states anymore, they shouldn’t vote anymore?

    A bit like in sports: American soccer players won’t win the World Cup so instead we watch professional Bowling?

  • LanceSmith

    “White men, and particularly older white men, were the only major demographic group to support Governor Romney over President Obama in great numbers”

    Apparently the author missed the article in The New Yorker entitled: “WHAT’S UP WITH WHITE WOMEN? THEY VOTED FOR ROMNEY, TOO”

    (I’m not sure if moderators allow links otherwise I would post it)

    It turns out that almost as many white women as white men voted for Romney.

    The problem is women has lost all semblance of diversity…all women are now grouped together with one another. This is done to continue the incessant white-male-bashing, the mixture of sexism and racism we have come to expect from the mainstream media.

  • Eva Arevuo

    While the views of our columnists here at Article 3 do not reflect the views of the organisation as a whole, this was supposed to be satire and so I apologize for any offense caused inadvertently

    • gwallan

      Did nobody read it first? I fail to see how it could be “inadvertant”. I fail to see how any rational person could read this piece and not be offended.

  • Stan Sinberg

    I get it. You don’t like Obama. I do. My point, which was tongue-in-cheek (seriously, no one is going to take away your vote), actually has some similarities to what Bill O’Reilly and conservative pundits have observed: white men have lost, and are continuing to lose, influence over the country. (Although you have to agree that they’re {we’re} still pretty well represented). Where Bill and his brethren and I differ is that I don’t think that that’s inherently bad. What I find offensive is that a certain percentage of “older, white men” seem to have voted against Obama because they sense “their” country is slipping out of their grasp. News flash: it’s still “their” country, but now it’s also the country of women, Latinos, blacks, gays, etc… I believe I learned that in kindergarten: Sharing is good.

    I personally find it unseemly when a group that’s been privileged for so long starts wailing about the playing field being leveled, and clings desperately to its top rung. I believe this demographic (to which I belong) is better served adjusting to the new reality than trying to ward it off. I tried to make this point humorously by proposing something that is (seriously) NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You can relax.

    (And to respond to one reader’s question whether it would be funny writing about taking away the votes of black men, single women, etc., the answer is “No” because a) You can make fun of a group to which you belong {Chris Rock could make taking the vote away from black men funny, I’m sure} and b) taking pot-shots at the powerful is a time-honored tradition. Dumping on those with less power is just bullying. Which is why Rush Limbaugh isn’t funny, but offensive.)

    • gwallan

      I’m Australian Mr Sinberg. Who actually won is of little interest to me. From our perspective the two major US parties are little different.

      Never in my life have I seen such a level of patronage toward a single demographic in an election campaign. If it weren’t for the presence of male candidates an outsider could easily form a belief that no men lived in the US at all.

      A particularly nasty slippery slope has been mounted. This election was bought. Democracy, at least in the US, will become a thing of the past.

      I presume this will suit you Mr Sinberg. You are obviously not a supporter of democracy. I’m reminded again of my ancestors and the freedom they fought for. Mr Sinberg you are not fit to clean their boots.

    • Mark Neil

      Feminists and the politically correct establishment would define your comment as “othering” if it wasn’t targeting the correct demographic, IE white men. Just some food for thought.

      “(Although you have to agree that they’re {we’re} still pretty well represented)”

      Depends what you mean by represented. If you mean visible, then I suppose. If you mean being allowed to have our issues heard and addressed, I would very much disagree. Men specifically, white men being a subset of that. There are no councils for men in government to address things like educational failures and sexism against men (read Warren Farrell’s proposal for a council for boys to men, and the 5 aspects of men in society that make it needed), as there are for women. There are no health departments for men, despite their shorter lifespans and greater levels of suicide, as there are for women. There are no representatives for men, such as Canada’s minister for the status of women. Many of the laws and policies in place are gendered, for women’s benefit (such as VAWA). Men need to ensure anything they say can not be taken in a manner that is offensive or easily misconstrued as “war on women” material. As Gwallan pointed out, there was a hell of a lot of pandering to women’s interest, not a pip about men. Men’s constitutional rights, particularly due process rights are being eroded in education, as described by the Foundation for Individual rights in education and many others papers. Title IX is ramping up to be used to attack men in STEM fields (the evidence for this is the refusal to apply it equally to all vocations, instead limiting it only to the ones currently led by men, despite men being the ones already earning the least amount of diploma’s. Why is that?). And I haven’t even family or criminal law. I’d hardly say men’s interests are being fairly represented. If you disagree, I’d be happy to hear your explanation for these inconsistencies listed above. And do know, “white men are in charge” is not going to cut it as an answer.

      As to the satire bit, I point you to my comment above. And regarding the “it’s ok because I’m a white male”… well, If you’re not familiar with the Reverend Unckle Ruckus, look him up and tell me he’s not racist.

    • LanceSmith

      “What I find offensive is that a certain percentage of “older, white men” seem to have voted against Obama because they sense “their” country is slipping out of their grasp.”

      First off, what is that percentage exactly?? After a lot of soul searching my wife and I both voted for Romney. And Obama’s race had nothing to do with it. Articles such as yours really are what is wrong with “journalism” (and politics) today. You are so wrapped up in your own point of view that you can’t fathom how anyone could see things differently then you see them. And instead of trying to understand a POV that differs from your own, you try to rationalize it by suggesting that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is stupid or a racist. I am neither.

      Second, as I already noted, what about the fact that more white women voted for Romeny then Obama? (according to the aforementioned “The New Yorker” article). You could have just as easily focused on whites (and left out gender) but instead you decided to pile on.

      Between you calling me a racist and you suggesting that white men are backward vs. women (when clearly white women are just as “backward”), that is what’s offensive.

    • LanceSmith

      Incidentally Stan, you should google the “apex fallacy” to see what is wrong with your overall argument. Summary: while you are correct that the top is disproportionately male, the vast majority of individuals – male or female – are not at the top. Therefore, looking at the top and seeing a particular demographic group and suggesting that this disproportionate representation implies some sort of privilege that extends to everyone within the demographic group is asinine.

      When one considers the privileges afforded to the “man on the street” vs. the “woman on the street” it is quite clear which nets the greater privileges (ans: women). But at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter who is more privileged. What matters is that individuals – regardless of race and gender – should not be afforded any privileges based on their race and gender.

  • John

    @Stan Sinberg

    There’s a problem with your arguement when you say,

    “I personally find it unseemly when a group that’s been privileged for so long starts wailing about the playing field being leveled, and clings desperately to its top rung.”

    The problem is, “white men” have no privilege. You’re pointing to Romney and Bernanke as an example of your typical white man. Back in reality land, where all but the minutest handful white men and women, Black men like Obama and his woman wife, is where the “typical” white man resides.

    You see where I live, which is where virtually all white, black and hispanic men live. The privilege of the “typical” white man this coming winter will be, hoping to have enough food on the table, pay rent and have the thermostat set at a blistering 58 degree’s.

    You’re doing what every media outlet always does. Comparing the very top white men to the very bottom of every other demographic. That’s like comparing billionaire Oprah Winfrey with an out of work white man whose living on a grate in center city, and saying that’s the typical economic situation of white men and black women.

    I’ll be sure to cut back on my white male privilege this winter and cut my thermostat down to 50 degrees and eat one meal a day instead of my standard two.

    And you know what else? For the past thirty or fourty years the mass media has been having a field day ridiculing us privileged, white men ad naseum. It’s no longer funny, it’s just flat out vile. Your next article should be an apology.

  • Bombe 20

    (I first tried to post this comment about 24 hours ago. If it is so unacceptable, please tell me why.)

    Only mildly funny, to be honest. You should at least have found a clever way to sneak the words “patriarchy” and “privileged” into the text. (But fortunately you meanwhile fixed half of that in a comment…)

    Now, granted, in this day and age it is difficult to do a satire on this topic at all. When feminist politicians in Sweden come up with a “male tax”, city planners in Vienna propose having a women-only district, Nobel price winner Doris Lessing notes how little boys are told in school that their sex is at fault for everything that goes wrong in the world, a woman who advocated “reducing” the male part of the population to 10% is hailed as a great thinker and Valerie Solanas’ S.C.U.M. Manifesto is being sold as a book and being made into a state-funded play for school children in -once more- Sweden, not to mention all the radfem stuff that goes on online, how radical would one have to get to make an obvious satire on such a topic?
    It probably exceeds the abilities of a sane mind…

    Bombe 20

  • http://mistresspixelwrites.com Liz McDonald

    Stan, I really think that there should be some sort of waiver so that some white men could remain enfranchised. A think one way to separate the tiresome white men from the nice guys like you and my husband would be simple enough. The white men who are willing to wear one of those front facing baby papooses (with a real baby in it) should be allowed to vote.

  • Stan Sinberg

    If I say “Men are stronger than women,” it doesn’t mean that ALL men are stronger than ALL women. It means that the average man is stronger than the average woman. For those of you who don’t think that the average white man has fewer obstacles in his path today than the average black man, I don’t know what to say – except perhaps you can tell me the precise moment that the playing field was leveled: after the Civil War, when the slaves were freed? In the 1950’s when blacks could drink from the same water fountains? In 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was passed? When Mean Joe Greene threw a white boy his jersey in a soda commercial? In 2008, when Obama became President?

    Despite how some readers are reacting to what I wrote, I didn’t call Romney voters “racist.” It’s a fact, though, that his rallies were composed 95% (at least) of white people, and it’s only whites who held up signs and shouted “I want my country back.” That doesn’t mean they’re racist – it means they’re “threatened” – and I can only assume that they’re threatened by a vanishing way of life in which the majority thought like them, and where (I would argue) they felt they had advantages that are disappearing. (A certain segment is also afraid of wacko things like Obama being a Muslim foreign-born terrorist, but what can you do?)

    As a middle-aged white guy who is far from financially secure, I suppose I could belong to this camp – but I don’t. I don’t because I think America today is a much better place than America in the ‘50s – culturally, sexually, musically and heterogeneously. I also don’t think America is a zero sum game – that there’s only so much “pie” and we have to fight over every piece of it.
    I imagine there were valid reasons for voting for Mitt Romney (and Lord knows, Michele Bachmann and Todd Akins) but to the extent that voters were motivated to inure themselves from Romney’s imagined “47 percent”- a version of which he repeated just today – I stand by saying that they’re on the wrong side of history – which even GOP stalwarts are now admitting.

    The part that’s got everyone’s panties twisted – that “white men shouldn’t vote” – is just a “device” to make a larger point. The Daily Show used it 3 days ago, saying, in the wake of the Petreaus scandal that “heterosexuals shouldn’t be in the military,” and Jonathan Swift used it when he wrote that society should engage in eating children. Believe it or not, he wasn’t actually advocating that…

    • Mark Neil

      “For those of you who don’t think that the average white man has fewer obstacles in his path today than the average black man”

      Not sure of the relevance of this. Are you suggesting that ether Romney or Obama are the average for their group? I’d seriously be interested to know how that plays into your assertions that old white men voted for Romney due to race, as I can’t see how racial privilige plays into that.

      Regarding your last paragraph. The difference is that heterosexuallity in general hasn’t actually been under constant attacks, and haven’t had their rights being systematically degraded (see my earlier posts), and baby eating actually goes against everything society believes. But denying white men the vote… it has become politically correct to attack straight (christian) white men, to deny them. It has been argued that men should be denied the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the court of law when it comes to accusations of rape. And before you assert that would never happen, read up on the Dear Colleague letter sent out by the department of education, and it’s impact on men’s rights to due process, and how the democrats tried pushing it into official law with the VAWA reauthorization. The problem with your satire is that it’s not far enough away from reality to actually be a joke. Poe’s law and all.

    • LanceSmith

      “It’s a fact, though, that his rallies were composed 95% (at least) of white people, and it’s only whites who held up signs and shouted “I want my country back.” That doesn’t mean they’re racist – it means they’re “threatened” – and I can only assume that they’re threatened by a vanishing way of life in which the majority thought like them, and where (I would argue) they felt they had advantages that are disappearing.”

      I didn’t see the signs you are talking about…but then (a) I’m not partisan, and (b) I don’t live my life looking for some way to paint white people as racists. Most white people aren’t and really don’t care.

      Beyond that, I would assume these signs meant any number of things. For one, the Republicans rightly believe that we are living in a country whose Federal Government is getting larger and larger. Instead of assuming that these folks are racists (or whatever you wish to call it), I would assume that they are just sick of federal overreach, and they believe – rightly or wrongly – that the Democrats are making this overreach worse. Now we could get into the hypocrisy of a subset of these folks, when it comes to things like gay marriage, but that’s beside the point. (after all, the rightists aren’t the only hypocrites)

      This is a perfect case where, as I noted before, the sort of “journalism” you espouse is part of the problem. Instead of actually listening to this point (which may have nothing to do with race) and agreeing/disagreeing/debating, you dodge the issue and suggest that these folks are racist (oh, ok…threatened…wink-wink). Granted, they might be, but you don’t know that. As The Economist recently noted, we MUST have this debate in this country. We can’t continue to demand a big, all encompassing federal government, but continue to tax like we want a smaller one. But it is easier to call each other names and spew vitriol instead of actually tackling to tough problems.

      “The part that’s got everyone’s panties twisted – that “white men shouldn’t vote” – is just a “device” to make a larger point.”

      The problem with your device is it is broken. If you would have said that “white PEOPLE shouldn’t vote”, I would have been far less offended. But you – like almost every other misguided journalist/pundit/commentator – chose to throw gender into the mix. Why? Because male bashing sells copy. But in this case, it has no bearing on reality. As I have referenced:

      http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/11/why-white-women-voted-for-romney.html

      As an aside, since you bring it up, I find it interesting that you bristle when Romney points out that a large percentage of people consider themselves victims, and then you go on to paint black people as victims as you did in your first paragraph. Is this a case where you honestly don’t believe black folks are victims (and therefore you are simply lying and/or using hyperbole) or is it a case whereby the truth is too unbearable to hear? Which is it? Again, you don’t get it both ways. You can’t maintain that blacks (or women or the dreaded 99%) live in a state of perpetual victimhood on one hand, and then be offended when Romeny points out the fact that you believe this nonsense.

  • Stan Sinberg

    Mr Smith, PLEASE STOP CALLING ME A JOURNALIST! I’m a columnist and a satirist, but I’m NOT committing ‘journalism’ here.

    YOu can slice and dice the electorate a million ways, but from what I read, single white women went for Obama and married white women for Romney. I chose to focus on the demographic group I belong to. If you don’t agree with that choice, then I respectfully suggest you write your own column. and

    “Victimhood” is a mindset. Romney offended half the population because he described THEM as feeling like they were victims. There’s a huge difference between looking around and realizing that conditions aren’t equal for everyone, and feeling victimized b it. Romney STILL doesn’t understand that, and the condemnation he’s getting from the likes of Christie and Jindal for his comments at least indicate that some Republicans are starting to ‘get it.’ Ok – I’m about done on this subject.