Bottom line: If you make less than 250,000 a year (per person, not per family) you have no business even thinking about being a Republican.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
And yet….the Democrats seem unable to convince a majority of people (most of whom will be far worse off under the Republicans) to support them.
What is it the Democrats are doing wrong, do you suppose? Why are they losing the PR battle when the Republicans are such an obvious bunch of noxious retards?
In a blind test, most Americans preferred a distribution of wealth more similar to that of Sweden than the distribution in the US -and they vastly underestimated the real concentration of wealth to a small, very rich group in USA.
http://www.thelocal.se/30008/20101103/
“The ‘American dream’ is actually Swedish: study”
Not being an american, I’ve always found it very difficult to understand how working class and lower middle class americans could vote republican.
If anybody has written a good book exploring the issue, I’d like to read it…
Democrats are more likely to believe that governments role is to help the individual.
Republicans tend to believe it’s up to the individual (and possibly God) to help himself.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/force-factor-reviews-do-force-factor-supplements-work-2369634.html
richarddawkins.net/discussions/543672-inhertitance-of-acquired-behaviour-adaptions-and-brain-gene-expression-in-chickens
atheists, we’re gonna cut off your heads…
THE HIGH PRICE OF REVOLUTION
youtube.com/user/xviolatex?feature=mhum
What I don’t get is that if you poll the American people, most of them want to let the tax cuts expire for rich people. How the heck are the democrats doing so badly on this issue?!
@ Peter:
One decent book attempting to explain it is Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas.” His thesis is that most Republicans don’t vote based on considering their own economic interests at all. Instead the Republican base votes entirely on “social issues.”
They disapprove of modern, urban culture. Both kinds of urban culture: that of the “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading” urban liberals, which they see as elitist and shallow and organized around single people rather than families, and the hip hop culture of the urban poor, which they see as being about drugs, guns, and single mothers raising their children on welfare, which they see as corrosive and dangerous.
They think there was a time when most Americans were decent, self-reliant, church-going, tightly knit families from a Norman Rockwell painting, and that is the time to which they want to return. So that is what the Republicans promise them.
I agree with this overall thesis, but I don’t think Frank gives quite enough credit to the sincerity of their religious beliefs either. For instance, he thinks that their opposition to abortion (which, though the Democrats treat it as just another plank in their party platform, is the single issue on which a large fraction of Republicans vote) is somehow tied up in a distrust of the modern medical system. I most often hear other Democrats put it down to misogyny — just a way to punish women for sexual sins. I think this is wrong. These people absolutely think abortion is murder, and that is why they will vote for whoever opposes it even if that vote risks costing them their own livelihood. The opposition to homosexuality, on the other hand, is not as deep, but is based on a belief in the importance of traditional families and family roles, which they see homosexuality as being destructive to. They oppose homosexuality in the same way, and for the same reasons, that they oppose adultery.
Anyway, you can tell just by looking at an electoral map that Democrat vs. Republican is really “urban vs rural.” And in the end its “modern, secular, sexually liberated” vs “traditional, religious, family-oriented.” And the things Republicans believe really are things most everyone believed all the way up through the 19th century and half way into the twentieth. We shouldn’t be so surprised that not everyone is onboard with modernity, especially those who still live in the country, with lifestyles closer to those of their ancestors.
But the Republican leadership are pretty evil for exploiting all these values voters, getting elected again and again by promising to return us all to the 1950s, and then actually using their power for the benefit of Wall Street bankers instead of poor rural families.
Fantastic comment Peter number 2.
“modern, secular, sexually liberated” vs “traditional, religious, family-oriented.”
Just so you know, these are all three false dichotomies. But I generally agree with your description, but I’d hate to see it distilled to this triumvirate of misconception . It’s a bit more complex and subtle.
One of my best friends is a metrosexual bisexual spiritual separation-of-chruch/state supporter non-religious very very family oriented moder traditionalist. There are fewer contradictions in her life than in most people’s lives. Oh, she votes progressive.
It’s more like a contamination effect. If you add sexual liberation you’ve ruined a person. If you add questioning the role of religious institutions you ruin a person. If you add a lot of education (that could have been included in your list … less vs more formal education) you ruin a person, if you add creatvity in combining the traditional and the modern you ruin a person.
The unruined person stands there with their pitchfork scowling at the outside world and votes against all modernity or change, the ruined person is a Democrat.
Long live the ruined people!
Huh. For some reason my comment (#6) is signed “Peter” instead of “Mary.” Probably I just got confused filling in the top box, because I was already thinking about how I was going to begin the post…
Mary, that comment has moved to 7 because some earlier comment got freed up. I’ve edited what is now 7 so your name is Mary instead of Peter.
And to those of you looking on, no, this is not a case of SPC (sock puppetry collapse). Though it kind of looks like it.
So to liberals, greed is the overwhelming determination of who to vote for? Whichever political party will best satisfy my desire for money and material wealth is the party I should choose?
Mitch, do you know how to prevent abortions–not just make them more dangerous, but actually decrease their numbers? Improve the economic conditions for the poor. Do you know how many families split over money issues? Do you know how poverty and drug addiction interact?
An economy that works for more than just the rich affects more than just your economic interests.
The conundrum hinges on the Republican use of high profile social issues to lead social conservatives around by the nose while quietly hosing them economically.
Mitch: “So to liberals, greed is the overwhelming determination of who to vote for?”
No, it’s the conservatives who live by the maxim, “I’ve got mine; screw you!” Liberals want more for everyone; conservatives want more for themselves, and who cares what the consequences to others may be.
Read Bob Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians” if you want to get an understanding of conservative beliefs are formed even when contradictory to their own self-interest.
It is on the internet as a free download.
A person making less that $250K who votes Republican is a deluded fool. A person who makes more than $250K and votes Democratic is a selfless patriot.
When I first started saying this, it was $100K. How times have changed!
Oh, yeah. Democrats stick up for the little guy. Uh huh.
On some Republican leaning blog, the people are complaining about how Democratic voters are screwing themselves for voting against their interests too. “Don’t they realize that those Democrats are just in bed with Wall St. bankers, giving them bailouts and corporate welfare?”
What percentage of people in this country delude themselves into thinking that D or R politicians are going to save them (or even “represent” them)?
What percentage of people in this country delude themselves into thinking that D or R politicians are going to save them (or even “represent” them)?
Juice, it came to pass a very long time ago that the “equivalence” argument was shown to be false. Please don’t sully my blog post with that crap.
The Democratic party is in need of reform, and it is always in need of reform. That’s why I show up at the caucuses and primaries, and keep a first name relationship with campaign managers, activists, and operatives in the party. If you get involved in the party you can shape the party. Well, that won’t work for the Republican party, but it does work to a measurable degree in the Democratic party.
The reason that the Democratic party usually shoots itself in the foot at just the wrong moment is, in fact, because it tends to be self reflective and has a conscious. That is often lost by specific elected officials, but I dare you to take your D and R rhetoric and say it out loud to Barney Frank or Al Franken. Or Franklen Roosevelt.
Hey, wait, there’s a pattern here ….
“Sully” your blog? ROFLMAO!
It depends on the issue. Democrats and Republicans did indeed agree on “Giving [Wall St. bankers] bailouts and corporate welfare.”
And I agreed too. Because whether or not you like the Wall Street banks, if they went down, the whole economic system would’ve gone down with them, including everyone’s retirement accounts and most people’s homes.
On other issues, there is no consensus within the parties — there are free traders and protectionists on both sides of the aisle. Immigration divides the parties only slightly less. (I think the rich Republicans don’t mind illegal immigrants so much — they don’t compete with them for jobs; they hire them.)
And on foreign policy, the differences are smaller than I’d like. Bush was really anomalously bad, and a lot of Republicans think he screwed up too. Obama and Clinton were not pacificists either; both have ordered a lot of strategic bombing, and Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan.
If these are the issues you care about, then I think its fair to say there is little difference between the parties. That’s part of the problem with having a two party system. You’d really need a lot of parties to ensure ideological unity within each on every issue.
But on the question of taxation and the social safety net, there are very real differences. And on the “social issues” as well. If these are the things that matter to you, then you’re in luck — you get a stark choice in the US.
Mary, I agree with much of what you say, but answer this: You have said Obama and Bush are similar on foreign policy, but what you really did was to equate making up shit in order to invade a region we had not previously invaded, creating a giant mess and one of the longest wars on record in our history vs. shifting strategies to reduce aggression in one country and increase it in another. The fact that neither one is a committed pacifist is true, but does not make them the same.
So, my question: Would Obama have made up weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq? No. Bush and Obama are not the same.
Also, everybody supported bush, but the R’s did it because they are bloodthirsty ghouls, and the D’s did it because they are ball-less sheep. So they did the same thing but for importantly different reasons.
Then there’s the few that opposed the war, and they were pretty much all or almost all Dems.
There are differences, and a lot of us want to see the differences broaden. But the position that they are not different therefore give up on both is unhelpful (not that you were saying that, but I hear it all the time and I find it to be a cop out).
There are other ways of looking at the situation of course:
Rich Dudes: OMFG! You cut taxes and I won’t be able to spend more money and make more jobs and make the poor richer!
Government: You, Rich Dudes, you’re not spending that money fast enough anyway. Here, let me help you spend it.
I also object to the “purchases of luxury items like $100M yachts and $20M houses helps the economy” argument – sure it helps, but not enough.
Greg — I really wasn’t trying to say Bush and Obama were equally (or even similarly) bad. I just don’t think that most other Republicans would’ve done what Bush did either. I think a lot of them also supported him out of the same gutlessness which afflicted Democrats, and many of them have repudiated him now. The thing about Bush’s War is, it just doesn’t make any sense, regardless of your ideology. That’s why I called him “anomalous.”
I don’t think sane Republicans and sane Democrats actually differ enough on foreign policy for my taste. It seems like, leaving out Bush’s War, the US has behaved pretty consistently under both types of leadership over the last half century. Perhaps that’s because a lot of foreign and military policy is actually made by the diplomatic corps and the military leadership. Anyway, I am one of the rare voters, I think, who does care about foreign policy. The Democratic party is definitely giving less aid and comfort to their nutcases right now (though there are leftist nutcases too, mostly of the extreme isolationist and protectionist flavor) and thus represents the clear choice. But still, I feel justified in saying that there is not as much difference between the sane Republicans and the sane Democrats as I would like.
(What I’d like: an end to American exceptionalism. The US signs on to the World Court, pays its UN dues, signs the Kyoto accords and ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. Cuts military spending and the associated saber rattling. Sends troops in aid of UN and NATO peacekeeping missions but almost never unilaterally. Abides by the Geneva conventions. Opens its markets to exports from Africa and South America while maintaining environmental and employee treatment standards on goods and commodities imported from those places. Makes legal immigration much easier and the borders more open. Etc etc. Granted all of these things are more likely under a Democratic administration than under a Republican one. But unfortunately for me as a foreign policy voter, in absolute terms they’re extremely unlikely under either. Hence, not different enough for me.)
I agree that sane democrats (of which there are many) and sane member of the pre teaparty version of the Republican party would differ much less on foreign policy, and that Bush is anomalous. Democrats formed a strong anti-war streak when Nixon was president, and a lot of those 100-200 year old Republicans who have been dieing off over the last 20 years started out as Democrats (subspeies: dixiecratus) and became Republicans because they supported the war. That created a real difference.
See, people like Paul Wellstone or George McGovern or Al Franken are on one end of the spectrum among Democrats, but there are actually a LOT of Dems at that end, some in office, many activists.
The real key issue here is how will Democrats and Republicans in office or running for office react to the greater diversity that exists among their base.
In the case of the tea party they put a few dozen crazies in office. In the case of the Democrats, we’ve been diversifying our elected representation for years, so we have blue dogs and we have progressives.
There is no way that the teabaggers, who are to the right of George Bush, becoming a strong factor, don’t make the Republicans different, even in foreign policy, going foward.
I mean, seriously, Sarah Palin and Michel Bachmann are the fave’s for the next Republican ticket.
I mean, seriously, Sarah Palin and Michel Bachmann are the fave’s for the next Republican ticket.
I had to say that twice because I didn’t believe it the first time. Second time, I threw up a little inside my mouth.
Yeah, I consider Palin and Bachman and Rand Paul to be among the nutcases currently being tolerated by the Republicans. I miss Bob Dole, and even Bush Sr.
I still can’t believe that these people will actually make it as far as the presidential ticket, though. I think Tim Pawlenty is more probable. Bachman and Palin make good TV, but I don’t think they can actually win more than, oh, 27% of the national popular vote. Not that I’d be at all happy with Pawlenty either (I’m a fellow Minnesotan). Because I think his domestic policies would be a disaster for the poor and middle class. But like most governors, he probably has very little experience in international affairs, and will do what his advisors recommend — the same recommendations a Democrat would likely get.
Mary, I have trouble believing that Palin and Bachmann were ever elected to any office. The problem with relying on that disbelief is that they were elected, multiple times. This is the Republican Party that we currently have to deal with, and they show no inclination to push the fringe out.
I think Tim Pawlenty is more probable.
Yeah, but … I can not think of a single way in which Tim Pawlenty’s politics are different from Michele Bachmann.
He does seem to spend a fair amount of time on trade missions … maybe he’s working for the CIA or something.
Oh, wait, I probably shouldn’t have said that out loud…
America turns to the GOP for the same reason that an abused child will run toward the abusing parent. Counter-intuitive as it may seem the fact is it is true.
Used to be thought, intuitively obvious really, that if you put the abusive and non-abusive parent at opposite ends of a hall and let the kid go in the center the child would run toward the non-abusive parent. Doesn’t work that way.
The abuser is sending stronger signals and the penalty for not running toward them is much more painful. The GOP is willing to trash the economy and see American lined up in bread lines to win power. Trashing the career of an active CIA agent is just the beginning of their wrath for a small slight. A million grannies reduced to eating cat food is seen as their just deserts for not being good capitalists.
When the GOP mouthpieces speak it isn’t in pastels and shades of gray as the carefully lay out the rational way to deal with a complicated world. They don’t talk about their misinformed but honorable opponent.
Anyone not agreeing is evil, the Antichrist, Hitler incarnate. Fascist/communist/terrorist loving idiot is so far down on the scale of insults that it is practically a term of endearment for them. People who do their bidding, assuming they have the means to demand their share, are richly rewarded. Both stick and carrots are applied lavishly.
With the Dems you never know if you are on their good side. So concern with being even handed the sweetness gets spread to friend and foe alike. Anger is expressed to opponents as their being misinformed and misguided.
The American citizenry is caught between the enabling Dems and the abusive GOP. Under financial,and emotional stress they automatically run toward the GOP.
America needs therapy.