Modern Left Guilty of "Red v Blue" Divide & Co

by **proldic** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:39 am

"What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas" by Larry Bartels <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7ebartels/kansas.pdf">www.princeton.edu/%7ebartels/kansas.pdf</a> Conclusions: * Has the white working class abandoned the Democratic Party? No. White voters in the bottom third of the income distribution have actually become more reliably Democratic in presidential elections over the past half-century, while middle and upper-income white voters have trended Republican. Low-income whites have become less Democratic in their partisan identifications, but at a slower rate than more affluent whites--and that trend is entirely confined to the South, where Democratic identification was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era--itself a holdover from the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. * Has the white working class become more conservative? No. The typical views of low-income whites have remained virtually unchanged over the past 30 years. (A pro-choice shift on abortion in the 1970s and '80s has been partially reversed since the early 1990s.) Their positions relative to more affluent white voters--generally less liberal on social issues and less conservative on economic issues--have also remained virtually unchanged. * Do working class "moral values" trump economics in determining voting patterns? No. Social issues (including abortion) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues, and that is even more true for whites in the bottom third of the income distribution than for more affluent whites. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income whites. * Are religious voters distracted from economic issues? No. For church-goers as for non-church-goers, partisanship and voting behavior are primarily shaped by economic issues, not cultural issues.

by **nashvillebrook** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:16 pm

my critique is about the function and mis-use of authority and it seems to fit with this critique. why are upper (middle) class white folk more likely to vote republican? the economics don't work for them either. you have to be MUCH more affluent to take advantage of voodoo economics. what is it then? i say it's "authority." and a touch of fear. kids from middle class families do "better than their parents" by doing what they are told and becoming "better parents" than their parents. this isn't to say they have happier or better families. this is about the use of AUTHORITY. go to the right country club. play golf with the right people. wear the right clothes. join the right frats. study at the right business school. cross all the t's and dot all the i's and you TOO will have a 4,000 square foot mcmansion in the suburbs and a BMW and a hot wife. i use reich in my crit, but it could probably be spun in game theory; deconstruction; or good old-fashioned social observation. here's a link to my essay -- it's also in the data dump somewhere. my rock-bottom assessment is that newbie repubs reject associating themselves with those "less-than" them. Democrats are losers. Democrats are rebels. Democrats won't help me become an AUTHORITY in my own right. i've couched the essay in SEX because i think that's an interesting way to unpack it. it's not about the sex though. don't get lost in that. it's about power. but yeah -- frank is on to something, but off-base in his theory. he observes but doesn't have the ability to plug it in to anything. ANYTHING. read the book. it's observation. hardly any explanation. BUT, a fine place to start. as for observation, he done good. and he's a wonderful speaker. We aren't in Kansas anymore: SEX and FASCISM in an UNCONSCIOUS AMERICA <a href="http://johnsoncity.blogspot.com/2005/06/we-arent-in-kansas-anymore-sex-and.html">johnsoncity.blogspot.com/2005/06/we-arent-in-kansas-anymore-sex-and.html</a> PROBLEM OF AUTHORITY WHY are Red Staters "chronically outraged'? WHY the "imagined persecution" and "hate" toward the left? HOW can a "taste for authoritarian leadership" blind them to real oppression? They weren't just born this way. It's not biological. These are psychological "units": hate, outrage, perceived persecution. Since 82 percent self-identify as white and christian, it's easy to imagine a sociological explanation, based on religiosity (degree of devotion). But there's something beyond Sunday sermons -- something in the fabric of their existence. Something essential, psychological. I believe Kansans are psychologically conditioned to these affects. It's not geography. It's not farming. Otherwise we'd be talking about ALL midwesterners. Iowans don't exhibit this psychology. How come they aren't our national symbol for conservatism? "Kansas" has been used as a symbol for family paradise by everyone from Ann Coulter to Frank Baum. We imagine toe-headed boys at afternoon little league and fall festivals at the church. "Family" lies at the heart of the symbol. What is it in the psychology of these particular midwestern families, that predisposes them to paleo-conservatism? Why does the idea of family "equal" authoritarianism? If we want to take the country back in one piece, we need to know what lurks in the hearts and minds of Red Staters that makes them prone to pushing this country toward fascism. HOW does it work that these folks can be herded into war and economic dire straits and take us with them? Frank observes that Red Staters respond to identity politics, ironically, despite their "railing against" identity politics as it applied to gays and people of color in the late 80s and early 90s. They LOVE identity politics when it applies to THEIR identity, i.e. suburbs, SUVs and super churches. Frank digs deep into this "identity," asserting it's a Christ-like persona they affect -- a "humility to service," evident in their sacrifice of economic interest for the good of the culture. Abortion, homosexuality and sex education will be extinguished. Economic security will come later, I suppose in the thousand-year paradise on earth. This is their myth. What is their essence? TO BE CLEAR, Bush DID NOT win either election. We have a problem with election fraud and this needs to be fixed. But I do think the acquiescence to authority throughout middle America most certainly ENABLED the stealing of the last two elections. Apathy toward authority (respect?) was reinforced by a mainstream media whose mission is limited by pandering to this demographic. If this country didn't have a malignant attitude toward "authority," Bush would have been impeached many times over. Now think about Clinton. He represented authority too. What's the difference? S-E-X. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nashvillebrook>nashvillebrook</A> at: 10/13/05 1:16 pm

Modern Left Guilty of "Red v Blue" Divide & Co

Modern Left Guilty of "Red v Blue" Divide & Co

i have problems with Frank as well.

Who is online