Tom Kando
...And here is another thing: On average, Republicans are poorer than Democrats! Just go figure. When it comes to economics, it should be pretty simple. There are two basic political attitudes, and you would expect them to correlate with how rich a person is: you would expect both the rich and the poor to vote their pocketbook. The rich would vote for lower taxes and for the government to butt out, i.e. Republican, conservative. The poor would vote for more re-distribution of wealth, more government services, i.e. Democratic, liberal. But, lo and behold, it’s the opposite! Even though there is a lot of overlap, the statistics are clear: The average income of the 100 million or so Republicans is LOWER than that of the 150 million or so Democrats!
This oddity can be explained, of course. The first thing we should understand is the enormous regional variation in democratic and republican support. There are red states and there are blue states. And as it so happens, “blue America,” (E.g the East Coast and my beloved Left Coast) is more urban and richer than “red America,” and it is also way more liberal. And as we all know, the Deep South has become the bastion of Republicanism. And of course the Deep South is the country’s poorest region. The other red states are mostly in the Rocky Mountains and in the Midwest - again, rural, poor, and culturally conservative. So at the aggregate level, richer states are more democratic and poorer states are more republican.
In an article titled, “Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state,” (Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Sept. 2007), Andrew Gelman et.al. Reconcile the facts I just mentioned with our common-sense expectation that poorer folks should be voting Democratic: Indeed, within states, that is precisely what happens. Furthermore, the authors write, the “slope (statistical jargon for “relationship”) is steepest in poor, rural areas. That is, in poor rural areas, the poor are much more likely to vote for the Republican candidate.” In other words, the authors, write, “income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America...For example, in rich states such as Connecticut, income has a very low correlation with vote preference.”
But I get back to my starting point: Overall, it is America’s poor who elect people like George W. Bush, and America’s (somewhat) rich(er) who elect people like Obama. And we just saw one reason for this: the poorest regions are also those that are the most conservative - culturally (red states).
In addition, consider the following factors:
1. Education: Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
2. The stars of popular culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhemingly Democrats (think of Marxist university presidents making over a million a year).
4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues - abortion, gay issues, religion, flag waiving, race, etc. Smokescreens, you might say. Come to think of it, this is related to #1: It’s easier to brainwash dumb and uneducated people.
So here you have it: At the local level, Americans may vote their pocket book interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. As a result, it’s the little old flag-waiving ladies in tennis shoes who live on $20,000 a year, who help Wall Street to perpetuate the plutocracy which is so unfair to them. Isn’t this aggravating? leave comment here
19 comments:
I think it comes down to a lack of education and lots of misinformation.
Thinking back at the 2008 presidential election: Obama wanted to raise taxes for anyone making over 250.000 Dollars a year. And cut taxes for anyone making under 200.000 Dollars a year.
Sarah Palin / John McCain said it would hurt small businesses, ignoring the fact that 95% of small business make under 200.000 Dollars a year, and therefore would be better off under the Obama plan. The GOP blatantly lied, and obviously did not have the best interest of small businesses in mind.
And the republican voters bought it. Why?
I guess a country gets the government and policy it deserves. :)
Tom,
A 5th reason for citizens voting against their own interests, which I would put FIRST is commercially controlled MEDIA, or the lack of publicly financed, independent, investigative JOURNALISM (although perhaps its under your 'brainwash' category). "Other democracies outspend the US by whopping margins per capita on public media: Canada 16 times more; Germany 20 more; Japan 43 times more; Britain 60 more; Finland and Denmark 75 times more. These investments have produced dramatically more detailed and incisive international reporting, as well as programming to serve young people, women, linguistic and ethnic minorities and regions that might otherwise be neglected by for-profit media. Currently our government spends less than $450 million annually on public media. (To put matters in perspective, it spends several times that much on Pentagon public relations designed, among other things, to encourage favorable press coverage of the wars that the vast majority of Americans oppose.) Based on what other highly democratic and free countries do, the allocation from the government should be closer to $10 billion." - Jeff Cohen (Founding Director of Park Ctr for Independent Media, Ithaca College). He suggests some of the stimulus be used for "an exponential expansion of funding for public and community broadcasting, with the requirement that most of the funds be used for journalism, especially at the local level, and that all programming be available for free online." TV is still the favored means of getting the news by the majority of Americans, although the percentage of us who use computers instead is growing. I saw TV news the other day at the gym, and was struck by the fact that the main commercial sponsor was BOEING, one of the biggest defense contractors. No wonder those channels became cheerleaders for the war!
On the notion that publicly funded media are more ‘objective’ than ‘for profit’ media, I would like to point out that 95% of the reporting in those European countries that most generously fund their media outlets (such as the Scandinavian countries), their reporting is extremely homogeneous. They all adhere to a ‘social-democratic’ point of view which is way out to the left. You do not find any challenge on topics like the War in Iraq for instance. In my experience, most publicly funded European newspapers and television programs are very biased in their reporting, and follow the mantra ‘ask me no question I will tell you no lie’. Except maybe for Britain, no European country’s news media has the journalistic diversity that the American press offers.
The liberals are all brainwashed in college. Then, of course, there is the liberal media that also brainwashes. Oh, and by the way, Republicans donate way more than liberals, who are selfish and are able to afford the best lawyers and accountants to shelter their money. 18% unemployment and a horrible economy and you think Obama is doing a good job? Can you say...communism?
It's gratifying that there is feed-back, be it agreement or criticism. Thanks for your comments, anonymous, and thanks for reading this post, even after many months. I hope that you keep up your comments, and thereby continue to contribute to our lively dialogue.
I remember I did a similar calculation when the Obama/McCain calculation, and Democrat voters (including independents) are on average richer than republicans. However, the WSJ just came with responses from exit polls and they show republicans as richer. The exit poll doesn't match with the calculations. Maybe republicans over state their income when they are asked?
Thank you for your recent comment, on an earlier post. I am at a loss to explain the discrepancy. Your hypothesis makes sense.
I agree with #4. For some reason, it's always a white person who is waiving a flag, who happens to be from one of the poorest state in the south, who is conservative. I guess the republicans figured out a way for these people to do their dirty work. In a way, what do these people have to lose? They repeat whatever a flag waiving person is saying. I understand the whole patriotic theme, but being racist on top of that, it kind of doesn't seem good.
Sounds like the rich democrats want to have their money taken and given to someone else. Do they really need a tax code to do that?
Anonymous is being cute. Unfortunately, without progressive taxes, there is no civilization.
I'm not sure what annoys you around people's personal preferences, or when they place greater emphasis on social issues over money. That's their business
Also, your assumptions are factually flawed. people that make less 50,000 a year are much more likely to vote democrat than republican. So while people are free to vote "against their pocket books" they actually don't.
Niek- the GOP didn't blatantly lie, 95% of small businesses do make less than 200k, but that includes the average American selling a beanie baby biannually on eBay via their LLC. More than 50% of small businesses that employ 3 or more people make 250k plus and the vast majority file s1s. Again, it's not fair to only view stats on the surface as they can be misleading.
One of the beauties of the web is that were forced to deal with vague generalizations (that I consider dangerous but to each their own), but I have to challenge your reasons.
The uneducated white southerner comments and their propensity to be homophobic are strange, because in entirety, minorities in the US vote against gay marriage ( an example of this is how gay marriage was voted down in California in 08 our most "progressive" state, more than 75% of minorities voted against it)
Regardless of your race we are free to vote however we want, that's why some of us like the US, but your facts are flawed again.
If you want to make generalizations from your vote stats and make easy, consensus comments like white southerners dont vote for Obama because theyre racist, do you have the courage and objectivity to look at minority votes as it relates to a candidate of color? or are you afraid
someone will call you a racist like the people you find it so easy to pick on?
Some of us believe it is uneducated to make broad based stereotypes and even dumber not to objectively challenge those vague assumptions by looking at both sides of an argument.
To Ryan48:
As I said in an earlier reply,
"It's gratifying that there is feed-back, be it agreement or criticism. Thanks for commenting on this post, even after a few years."
Since my article was about social class and not about race, I won't respond to your comments about race.
As to the economic facts you question: They are what they are, as I present them, whether you accept them or not.
I also explain the seeming paradox, so there is no problem there either.
Tom, thanks for responding and the open forum. However, please dont dodge what you said. You called the social paradox "aggravating", so it seems you do have a problem with people voting on social issues over their pocketbooks, and you called those people "dumb and uneducated."
also, regarding race and gay marriage, here is what you said
" Brainwashing: Republicans, the media and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues - abortion, gay issues, religion, flag waiving, race, etc."
this clearly implies your conclusion on this "aggravating" paradox is certain white poor people dont vote for democrat/ Obama because he isnt white and is pro gay marriage despite his tax policies accomodating them (thats your factually and statistically incorrect conclusion)
I gave you clear voting statistics as to why thats not true and why on average the poorest people vote democrat, whites are more likely to vote for gay marriage and a minority candidate than the opposite (even in, yes, the south), etc
Its terribly ironic that you have the internet courage to call people "dumb and uneducated" when you write an article based fully on steretypes with easily disputed facts behind it, and I think its shame that you have a megaphone to preach this sort of hate.
Ryan:
You distort things.
I said that "it is easier to brainwash dumb and uneducated people."
Do you wish to argue that it is easier to brainwash intelligent and educated people?
Nowhere do I say that white folks vote against Obama because of his race - although I am sure that millions do, as innumerable observers have noted.
Who is the hate monger?
My "megaphone" reaches an infinitesimal fraction of what the true, corporate-sponsored hate mongers at Fox News and elsewhere reach, but you would silence me.
Thank God for the Internet. It protects us against the growing assault on the 1st amendment.
Rich states are more democratic, but rich people are more republican.
How wealthy you are determines how you vote. But it depends on where you live.
The interesting part is how it has change over time within the rich segment of Americans.
Rich Americans who live in a red state are more Republican than before. Rich Americans who live in a blue state are more Democratic than before.
The poor are still democratic, no matter where they live.
Anonymous puts it fairly well: Rich states are more democratic, but within those states, the richer individuals are more often republican.
But let me be even more to the point, and try to put to rest the ONE central fact of this post - the one in the title:
DEMOCRATS ARE RICHER THAN REPUBLICANS.
This is a fact.
You add up the total income of all 100 million Republicans in the US, and divide by 100 million.
You add up the total income of all 150 million Democrats in the US, and divide by 150 million.
And bingo, you get what is called the MEAN or the AVERAGE. It’s not rocket science.
Why debate this? It’s done. It’s a fact. For the US AS A WHOLE, disregarding all other variables, Democrats are richer than Republicans.
I didn’t write about this so as to debate an undebatable fact, or to teach people like Ryan48 what a mean or a control variable is.
I wrote it because I thought that it would be interesting to interpret and explain this fact, which is COUNTER-INTUITIVE. I offer some interpretations in my post, and anonymous also provides a good, brief, explanation.
Because Democrats are the corrupt, greedy, racist, intolerant(of all things Godly), oppressive, phobic, vile people they accuse Republicans of being. They are the reason poverty and the slums exist because they constantly look out for number 1. They are the reason fascist laws like no bibles or prayer in schools came into being. They are the reason innocent children are being force fed the homosexual agenda to corrupt and confuse their thinking about the Godly definition of love, marriage, family and family values.
Democrats are evil and corrupt. Always have been. They are modern day Nazis and Hitler was one of their own. A Luciferian hiding behind Catholicism. They are the reason Catholicism is so corrupt and all about the gay and pedophile agenda. Democrats have been ruining our nation since the beginning of time.
And I'm not even a political person saying this. Just a God-fearing, racially harmonious Christian who has observed and been victimized by the evils of Democracy.
It’s interesting that this post still elicits comments, nearly a decade after it was written.
I’m not deleting it, but leaving it posted (conditionally), because it shows vividly the depth of the problem America faces. This comment is perfect confirmation of the frightening belief system towards which America is moving.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!