That’s also why the GOP is still seen as the party of personal responsibility, even with Trump in there. A lot of people don’t see liberals as personally responsible people.
However, it does not mean that every cop is a Republican. A lot of them are apolitical.
That’s because the Fox News version of “liberals” has nothing to do with reality. The RW media has spent decades training its followers that liberals are lazy, criminals, hate babies. etc.
The reality is liberals and conservatives, Democrats Republicans, are all of us. Teachers, postal workers, tradesman, the checkout person at the store you chat with every time you shop, your parents, siblings, cousins, wife, children, the Pastor at church, the neighbor that feeds your pet and brings your mail in when you are out of town. Everyone has opinions, often they conflict, but to have a mindset that tells you that you can dismiss HALF of the population as not being personally responsible? How on Earth does that sound rational to you? I’ll bet you don’t like any sentence that starts with “Conservatives are…” or “Republicans all…”. Why then do you think it makes sense to do that to others? Have you ever met a liberal? Had a conversation with one that wasn’t an argument or just trading insulting memes back and forth? You should try it. Might open your mind a bit. We are all just people. making it through each day the best we can and trying to do what we can to make this world a better place. If we can all stop thinking of anyone that disagrees with us as some awful, unworthy. terrible “other”, and start thinking of each other as actual real people that are more alike than different maybe things can start getting better, but as long as we’re just at each others throats, the only ones that will continue benefiting are the rich and powerful.
In the real world a lot of people split tickets, or identify with one party even if they mainly vote for another. I have older relatives who are “Democrats” as its in their DNA and culture to be so, but frequently vote for Republicans in national elections. The gist of it is they like national candidates who talk tough on immigration, military affairs, or social issues, but want a local politician such as a state legislator who likes to fund schools, parks, and so forth and will not act like Sam Brownback in Kansas.
One of the things that has really decimated Democrats is that, after 2008, the Republicans made an all out effort to get those splitters to tie their local and state-level votes to national politics - wiping out Democrats in state legislatures - which in turn, play a critical role in drawing congressional districts. Much of that consisted of introducing hot-button bills in state legislatures such as concealed carry laws, forcing Democrats who usually ran on bread and butter issues into a corner on questions that had not been major issues in the past.
I think it’s slightly different. We’ve seen the death of ticket splitting because we just don’t have conservative Democrats any longer. It was easy to vote for a Nixon or a Reagan and vote for a Democrat that would be the equivalent of a Republican today.
Also, the Democratic Party had 3 wings that basically functioned as separate parties. The Dixiecrats, the big city bosses, and the egghead elite wings all carried the same party name but were basically separate.
The ACA and the horrible recession finally killed the remaining Blue Dogs in 2010.
Sure we do. What we don’t have any longer are liberal Republicans. Someone like Nelson Rockefeller or John Chafee could go absolutely nowhere in today’s Republican Party.
:dubious: How does your “demographics” theory explain the fact that, for example, the Unions of Machinists, Roofers, Plumbers, Bricklayers, and Carpenters in 2016 endorsed Hillary Clinton? And that in this election cycle the Fire Fighters’ Union has endorsed Biden and the United Electrical Workers have endorsed Sanders? Are you arguing that machinists, roofers, plumbers, bricklayers, carpenters, firefighters, and electrical workers don’t tend to come from “blue collar backgrounds”?
Nah. Unions in general, no matter how “blue collar background” their members may be, tend to endorse Democrats because they know that Republicans want most workers to be disorganized, poor and powerless. The reasons that Republicans’ anti-union sentiments make an exception for police unions are pretty self-evident.
But those Republicans could feel happy voting for a Ford or a Bush. Even Reagan wouldn’t be a horrible stretch against a weak 1980 Carter or a Mondale.
I haven’t heard the idea that liberals are personally irresponsible. What I have heard over and over again from Republicans of my acquaintance is that liberals are irresponsible with other people’s money, and that they have a tendency to let their desire to help people/change the world overcome their inherent obligation to be fiscally responsible.
But as far as police officers go, plenty are apolitical. But what I was saying is that in a philosophical sense, someone motivated by a desire to help others and/or right wrongs in society, isn’t going to be attracted to a job where your primary job is to be the applicator of the state’s force to apprehend/stop lawbreakers. That’s the sort of job that someone who is more concerned with maintaining the status quo and the maintenance of law and order.
So to that end, I suspect that we get more philosophically conservative cops, even if they’re not politically motivated overly much in that direction.
What do these Republicans say when you point out that their party is blowing up the deficit and national debt in order to hand out more tax cuts to the wealthy? Not to mention their party’s obstinate refusal to recognize the facts of climate change, in order to keep the massive profits flowing to fossil-fuel companies and their wealthy beneficiaries?
The notion of the Republicans as the party that respects an “inherent obligation to be fiscally responsible” ceased to represent any kind of factual reality a long time ago, but Republicans themselves still desperately cling to that illusion.
Whoa:
So they’re saying they’re no longer under the authority of the mayor. They basically want to secede from his authority while continuing to draw their paychecks, and be a power unto themselves.
That can’t be allowed to stand.
It gets worse at the link.
Nothing new, really. For as long as I can remember, the NYPD unions have believed they should be accountable to no one but themselves. It’s possibly a tiny bit worse with deBlasio but it’s not new.
Whoa… all I was saying is that the Republican party line is one of collective irresponsibility, not individual irresponsibility. I wasn’t making any judgments one way or the other about it.
Wow. That’s freakin’ crazy.