MISUNDERSTANDING OR MISUNDERESTIMATING?

Mr. Herman,

I think one of us misunderstood what David Brooks was saying
in his commentary about John Kerry’s speech.

I thought [Brooks] was saying that the
Democratic Party has traditionally been the party for mommies — i.e. it has appealled more
strongly to women — while the Republican Party has positioned itself to appeal more to daddies,
i.e. men. His point as I took it was that Kerry was trying to appear strong on defense and other
such “manly” concerns, and the party made almost no mention the entire convention of
traditionally women-focused issues like abortion, pay equity, etc., because Kerry was making an
overt play for male voters. Brooks even stated that Kerry was taking a page from Bush’s 2000
campaign, when his “compassionate conservative” crap won over many female voters. (Idiots!)
But, of course, Kerry is doing it in reverse, trying to appear “strong” (as if championing women’s
issues makes one look weak — ugh!) and less compassionate to appeal to men.

With
all of that in mind, I didn’t take [Brooks’s] meaning to be that the nation is an infant. Rather that
men with kids have certain concerns that tend to lead them to vote Republican, and women with
kids tend to care about the same issues as the Democrats. Using this interpretation, I didn’t think
it was such a dumb comment. In fact, I thought he correctly identified one of the main goals of
Kerry’s speech; moreover, I think it’s probably a pretty good strategy to get Kerry elected. At
least I hope it is!

Thoughtfully yours,

Kriston Eller

Facebook

Twitter