As pointed out earlier, blacks are certainly no voting block for the GOP. It’s the lower income white voters that we’re really talking about. Many of these are single issue voters for one of two issues: abortion and gun control. The GOP has exploited these single issue voters for years- if you are against abortion and you are against gun control, and if you are a single issue voter, then you will vote Republican. In the case of abortion, it would not be in the Republicans’ best interest to see either Roe vs. Wade overturned or an amendment ratified to ban abortion. In such an event, the single issue voters suddenly become free to vote their economic interest- bad news for the GOP.
A lot of it has to do with religion and idiology.
Many blue collar workers see some people on welfare that are “cheating the system” and think that “my hard earned tax dollars are going to support that lazy bum”.
I know a majority of welfare recipiants are not doing this but lower middle class workers always can point to who they think is “cheating the system” when they vote for Republicians.
As someone who grew up lower-middle class in a very poor area, I find some of these condescending comments about the poor quite insulting. It’s pretty easy to justify your political beliefs by calling someone who doesn’t share them ignorant. However, that fails as real political analysis. It’s also completely off the mark to say that poor people are more conservative because they are ignorant or because they are fooled by the media. Well, if that’s the case, it’s a good thing that we have such educated liberals around to take care of them and tell them what to do! Perhaps you should read David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest to see where this type of liberal arrogance got our country in the 1960’s.
What most liberals don’t seem to realize is that poor people generally vote conservative not because of any economic issues but because of values issues. Poor people are generally very conservative when it comes to values and they vote accordingly. Ben Wattenberg’s book Values Matter Most explores the issue in some detail. These people aren’t being fooled into voting for anyone, and they aren’t too ignorant to cast a “correct” vote for some benighted liberal who will save them for themselves. They vote for candidates who share their values and to whom they can relate.
I think Renob just nailed down a very good point.
It’s not about “ideology,” it’s about “values.” Heheheh.
I, too spent some time growing up in a rural and highly conservative area. It was God’s country. God paved the roads, God funded the schools, God ran all the telephone, cable, water, sewage and electrical lines, God built and ran the ammunition plant which employed most everyone, God subsidized the farmers and ranchers.
And God hated indolent minorities who soaked up all our tax dollars by living on welfare in cities.
The republican hold on poor, rural voters has got to be the biggest ripoff in history. That party regularly uses blatant scares tactics to demonize the left to this constituency. Then they go back to Washinton and raise the tax burdon of this same group and give the money to rich urbanites.
If the majority of Americans voted their minds instead of their hearts the Republicans would be a minority party at all levels of government. They only continue in their possition of prominance because of pandering to the fears of religious fundimentalists.
The rich will always vote Repulican. I think the days may be numbered where other voters are willing to line up to be screwed in exchange for the occational meaningless vote to allow prayer in the public schools or to ban abortion. But then I still think that people are rational animals, so what do I know.
What exactly are these “values”? Is there more to it than the candidate’s stance on “social” issues (abortion, gun control, gay marriage, separation of church and state or lack thereof)?
Let’s flesh this theory out a bit. Can you define the income level you are calling “poor”? Can you then tell us how much income tax these “poor” people pay? Can you show us what income tax increase you are talking about?
I’m curious.
BTW, does anyone have any actual statistic on voting patterns by income level? I’m surprised this debate got this far without any actual facts. I did a bit of googling, but didn’t find anything.
**The GOP has exploited these single issue voters for years- if you are against abortion and you are against gun control, and if you are a single issue voter, then you will vote Republican. **
Not necessarily.
I guess you could call me a single issue voter. I absolutely will not vote for a candidate with a pro-abortion voting record.
Anyhow, here in WV many times this means I have to vote for a democrat because the other candidate either supports abortion, or there IS no other candidate. Makes me wanna cry when I do it but I’m not going to ignore my conscience just to “vote the party” and vote Republican no matter what.
The democratic party may support abortion but many of their candidates do not, especially in states like WV and KY, where the democrats are basically the same as the Republicans.
I’m so glad you posted, SnoopyFan. Yes, there are a smattering of districts in the US where single issue abortion foes would have to vote Democratic, thank you for that correction. But please satisfy my curiousity- do you vote the pro-life candidate out of any hope of changing abortion legality or is it purely a matter of principle? I’m more pragmatic and my approach would be: candidate A is pro-choice, candidate B is pro-life. But no matter which one wins, abortion is still going to be legal so I might as well see where A vs. B stack up on other issues.
I did some more googling, and still can’t find party affiliation by income level. So I’m going to go out on a limb here and offer what I think the data would turn up. I’m open to retracting this if someone comes up with some real data that contradicts it.
The “poor” are actually more likely to vote Democract, if they vote at all. I’m defining “poor” as someone who receives some sort of direct gov’t aid (welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credit, etc). I suspect that these folks vote at a lower frequency than other income groups. I suspect that more vote Dem than Pub, especially at the local level. I also supsect there is a significant regional and racial difference. Poor northerners are more likely vote Pub than are poor southerners; poor Blacks are more likely to vote Dem than are poor Whites.
I think the OP is confusing the middle class (or maybe lower middle class) with the poor.
First, a correction from my last post. That should have been “Poor northerners are more likely vote Dem…”
Second, here’s a pretty good artilce that addresses at least part of this subject: Voter Values Determine Political Affiliation. Note that the even among whites in the lowest income level (< $15k/yr), a majority voted for Gore in 2000.
Hmm…I suppose that the left’s claims that the right wants to end Social Security, poison drinking water, and cut off Grandma’s Medicare benefits are 100% correct.
And if the voter had to pay federal, state, and local taxes in one lump sum where he saw the actual total instead of being slowly robbed every paycheck the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party would be a museum piece.
Ohh…and easy on the paintbrush. Since I’m not particularly religious let alone a fundie, which of my fears are being pandered to?
Well, we agree on one point. I also think that people are rational. And that explains the lack of a viable Socialist Party here.
Might a factor be that blacks are mostly URBAN POOR and the RURAL POOR WHITE ?
Generally, I’d say social issues, but not in the sense that many liberals understand.
Take gun control, for instance. A lot of rural people (who often happen to be on the poorer end of the spectrum) would never vote for anyone who supports gun control. It’s not just about that issue, though. For a lot of rual people, owning and using a gun is part of their lifestyle. It’s part of their culture. Someone supporting gun control indicates to them that this person fundamentally does not understand their culture. Why would they support someone who just doesn’t get them? That person would not share their values and would not make decisions that reflect or respect those values.
It’s the same way with many social issues, such as religion. It’s not so much the issue of prayer in school or whatever. Instead, it’s what that issue represents. They are skeptical of people who can look at the world and dismiss the need for prayer in school. It is clear to them that a person who can do this does not share their, no pun intended, fundamental view of the world. And it’s clear that this candidate cannot effectively represent them.
I don’t know if I said that clearly or not. Let me know and I’ll try and elaborate.
I must also say that the attitudes by some of the liberals on this board illustrates exactly why poorer (mostly rural – I think this divide is much more of a rural/urban divide than a poor/rich one) people are more conservative. The absolute arrogance of some here who think that the poor are stupid and easily led around, and this is the only reason they vote conservative, only shows that they are correct in voting conservative. It’s clear that these liberals do not share their values and completely misunderstand their culture. Why should anyone vote for pompous bastards who look down on them and think that the poor need their enlightened views to save them from their own stupidity? If you liberals here have such a hard time understanding why the poor don’t vote the way you thnk they should, you really need to look at yourselves in the mirror.
Renob:
From the Washington Post article I cited above:
Well said Renob. Some of the posts in this thread by the liberals are most telling.
But please satisfy my curiousity- do you vote the pro-life candidate out of any hope of changing abortion legality or is it purely a matter of principle?
Most of the time, simply principle unless they are running for a big office (governor, etc.).
The right has managed to turn the political scene into an “Us vs. Them” situation. It’s easier when there are only two sides to an arguement; villify the opposition and you win. Right wing talk radio pundits shriek about the “liberal dominated media” while dominating the air waves. W. benefited from his country boy behavior. His “I’m your buddy, I’m your pal, I’m a compassionate conservative” act struck home with people that buy the “liberals think they know what is best for you and think you’re dumb” line. (Gore didn’t help himself in this regard, by playing into that idea.)
The same reasons that people like Rush, O’Reilly, and Savage are popular radio hosts, are the same reasons the poor, (non-union) blue-color workers vote conservative. It’s easier to show conservative issues in black and white, right and wrong.
The people I mentioned in my first post would benefit from better prescription drug coverage and better healthcare as a whole. They’re older, and if they were voting in their personal interests, wouldn’t continue to vote Republican, but their parents were Republicans, they don’t think the gays should be given special rights (the Bible says it’s wrong!), they don’t want the blacks getting favored for a job over their more-deserving nephew, or the Mexicans coming in and taking jobs (that they don’t want in the first place), they don’t want these minority teen mothers going out and acting reckless and then getting abortions instead being abstinent and eventually starting a loving nuclear family like God wants, they don’t want the government taking away their guns, or their right to a gun, because that’s what the Nazis did, they want revenge on them Arabs, and they sure as hell ain’t going to wait for them to attack us first again! and if they want to go after the Arabs, they don’t need nobody’s permission. I realize that this is from a very small sample, and I’m not suggesting that everyone fits this description, but in my experience it’s accurate.
What it comes down to is that it’s easier to get people heated up by taking a simplistic approach that isn’t anything more than “Us vs. Them”. Good always prevails, and as long as you’re on “our” side, you’re on the “good” side, and God is on “our” side, the good side.
I think that some people here are confusing “belittling the poor” with “taking umbrage at the fact that the poor are being taken advantage of”, just like they think liberals just want to tax the hell out of you and spend it on welfare queens. I really don’t think that running up the deficit by giving the rich tax cuts and going around invading other countries under false pretenses is really any better, especially morally, than what they mischaracterize liberals of doing.
Hell, real conservatives are pissed at the Bush admin for spending so much…so anytime you hear a word from the Bush admin about being fiscally reponsible, etc., is pure, deliberate and cynical falsehood. And they have the audacity to go around chanting"liberal, liberal! Tax and Spend Democrat!"
Bullgoddamnmotherfuckingshit! :mad:
Hard to pigeon hole people, John Mace. I never go to church and I’m no democrat (nor a republican either). However I am (at least on THIS board) fairly conservative I suppose.
My experience has been the opposite than the OPs. My family (my EXTENDED hispanic family) is mostly poor. With the exception of one uncle and my father, NONE of them are republicans…nor are they conservative. They are very much blue collar, union rules, money for the minorities (well, for hispanics anyway) kind of folks. They hate Bush with a passion that would make some of the folks on this board blush.
Uniformly they are democrats. We are talking a BIG family here, with 9 of the first tier (my uncles and aunts on my fathers side), each of which has anywhere between 2 (my folks) and 9 children of their own in the second tier (my generation :)), and OUR children in the third tier (and a new 4 tier started as THEY have children…gods I feel old sometimes)…all presided over by the matriarch of the family, my grandmother. The point of all this digression is that, of the lot, only my father and uncle are ‘conservative republicans’. They ALL go to church btw (big time Catholics from the old scary school with saints and stuff all over their houses), and they are mostly as poor as it gets (well, some of my cousins are starting to seriously acclaimate like myself)…with the exception of myself and my father who DON’T go to church nor decorate our houses like some wierd religious amusment park…and aren’t poor.
In my old neighborhood in south Tuscon this trend was iron…ALL of the folks with very few exception were democrat/liberal…and they all went to church big time. And you just don’t get any poorer than South Tuscon IMO…least not when I was growing up.
So, I’m not buying the OP that poor folks are necessarily republicans…unless you mean poor WHITE folks.
-XT