Why are Caucasian males so often considered to be angry? I know quite a few, and have for many years. Not very many of them are angry — or resentful — about anything.

I'm not sure what your socio-economic level is Boyd but study after study for 40 years has shown that white males have been much more hostile to the changes in post-modern culture from the inclusion of blacks, women and gays. Set aside the current environment (post 90's), white males have fought against Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement and Affirmative Action (I'll just concern myself with the pre-90's when racism and sexism in hiring practices was rampant) in much higher levels of intensity than any other group.

The fact is that, assuming that you are on a higher socio-economic ladder, relatively poorer white males are considerably angry about their status in the United States. White men in the upper-middle class and higher have never been that angry, because quite frankly they don't feel that there way of life is under assault. For those in the middle and lower things are quite different. That's how we get a large number of poor white males railing against welfare, while at the same time being on welfare.

James Joyner warns of the dangers of particularism: Schaller'€™s mindset -- and the Republican counterpart that seeks to build 50 percent plus one through a divide and conquer strategy --€” is incredibly dangerous however. In its extreme, it€'s ...

The percentage of white males is dropping in the population, so Joyner is arguing that if the Democrats stop expending energy trying to appeal to them ... the white men will take up arms? That's just a crazy argument.

I'm not saying that happens any time soon, just that it is an extreme outcome of the notion behind the strategy.

Also, I am not sure exactly what policies Joyner thinks Democrats will enact that will create these "reinforcing cleavages." What policies would harm men without harming women? Or harm white men without harming non-white men?

Well, clearly, black men and white women think they have different interests than white men given their different voting patterns.

Affirmative action and other redistribution programs are the most obvious example.

The 60-65 percent of white males that Democrats habitually lose are disproportionally (sic) Southern and Western,

Okay, with you so far.

rural and exurban,

Yes, agreed.

military or ex-military,

Sure.

and resentful that they don't have the advantages their fathers had over women and minorities in the workplace.

Umm...no.

Why are Caucasian males so often considered to be angry? I know quite a few, and have for many years. Not very many of them are angry — or resentful — about anything.

Those who haven't advanced professionally blame it on affirmative action.

I'm scratching my head over that one. I don't know any like that.

They will never get over it.

Y'know, this is starting to sound like projection.

Younger white men aren't angry about the same issues. They've grown up in a more pluralistic society, and don't have their elders' sexual and ethnic hangups or expectations of advantage.

Ah, now I understand. You're just making shit up.

Good to know I can just ignore you, abao.

The only way a Democrat can appeal to these men is to become a de facto Republican of the Zell Miller type, and doing that would lose them more votes than they would gain.

There's another good reason for the Dems not to court "angry white males": Younger white men aren't angry about the same issues. They've grown up in a more pluralistic society, and don't have their elders' sexual and ethnic hangups or expectations of advantage.

The grievances of Gen-X and younger men will be generational and economic, and will be shared by women and nonwhites of the same age. Neither party has developed much of an edge in addressing their interests; but appeals to male resentment won't sway many of these voters.

I am curious, however, to know if white males are voting against Democratic policies, or for Republican ones. It may not be that they don't like Democratic party principles, it may be that the Democratic party doesn't like their principles.

Also, I am not sure exactly what policies Joyner thinks Democrats will enact that will create these "reinforcing cleavages." What policies would harm men without harming women? Or harm white men without harming non-white men?

Crazy.

"staking out policy positions seemingly designed to alienate the demographic that built the country."

That seems to mean something that hopefully you don't mean it to mean.

The country was founded by descendants of Brits and Germans, mostly and, certainly by men owing to the vagaries of the time. It would be ironic, indeed, to build a governing coalition which sought to include them.

Any rational political movement would try to hold what they have with any group, and expand it if possible. Perhaps one could argue that Dems should not bother to make a big effort to push that number upwards significantly, if there are more promising areas for growing their constituency, but why "write it off"?

In the grand scheme of things, 38% is not an inconsequential number - probably amounts to 8 million or so votes in a national election.

Methinks the Dems are not particularly interested in just giving those votes away. Seems like a pretty dumb analysis to me.

As for a civil war,one limiting factor is the difficulty of drawing GEOGRAPHICAL boundaries this time around.

That seems to mean something that hopefully you don't mean it to mean.