# Blue states smarter than red states? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [January 20, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127 "2012-01-20T14:04:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![penumbrage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@penumbrage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penumbrage)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/201 "2012-04-15T19:54:04Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > … has involved a man and a woman … Perhaps we just have a simple difference of definition here. Do you define a man as a human with a penis and a woman as a human with a vagina or do you define a man as a genetic XY male and a woman as a genetic XX female regardless of whether Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia or any of the dozens of other gender scrambling medical disorders have robbed them of the genitalia appropriate to their sex? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/202 "2012-04-15T23:34:42Z")
> [@66Scorpio](#): > > [http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx](http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/M/Marriage.aspx) Seems a little biased to cite a legal dictionary, given that it is just stating the current legal defintion, not historical definitions from all society’s throughout time. Note your very cite says > [@](#): > > The law can and has been changed by some governments (eg. Canada) exercising their jurisdiction over this area of family law, to allow marriage between two persons of the same sex. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/203 "2012-04-18T23:40:07Z")
> [@Zaklog](#): > > Why on earth would I want that? . . . Ah, because Hollywood and liberal academics tell me I should. They’re probably right. It’s not like these people could ever steer us wrong. It’s not like they advocate pedophilia (_The History Boys_), a one-child policy which leads to forced abortions (_Harry’s Law_), infanticide, or bestiality (Peter Singer). Hmmm, wait a minute, maybe I shouldn’t listen to them. Poisoning the well, slippery slope, ad hominem… you going for some kind fallacy record here? My point, which you seem to have missed in your rush to condemn all that is left and liberal, was that given that we have children being raised by homosexual couples (and we do, now and into the future), shouldn’t family-values conservatives who are concerned for the welfare of children _want_ them being raised in a stable family by two parents who are married to each other? Because from here, it looks like you’re a hypocrite who only wants kids in a stable family if the family looks the way you think it should look. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![leejacky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ec9cab/32.png) [@leejacky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leejacky)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/204 "2012-05-28T07:02:01Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > [Link to column](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3033/are-blue-states-smarter-than-red-states) > > Isn’t part of intelligence the ability to accept and evaluate facts contrary to belief? And don’t authoritarian personalities, who strongly self-identify as Republicans / conservatives, in many studies have much more problems accepting contradictory facts than people who identify as Democrats or Liberals? > > [Last report](http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/19/fox-news-trust-distrust-and-control/) I found on this matter: that was pathetic and I think either blue or red are no different on the brain ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/205 "2012-05-28T10:42:49Z")
The simplest answer is the best, but only if many answers are considered and compared. Occam’s Razor is not meant for slashing wildly about. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/206 "2012-05-29T18:29:31Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > And don’t authoritarian personalities, who strongly self-identify as Republicans / conservatives, in many studies have much more problems accepting contradictory facts than people who identify as Democrats or Liberals? This is something that’s been bothering me for quite some time. Why is it that people who insist on heavy economic regulation, say that people who insist on little or no regulation are “authoritarian”? Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are? Democrats are far more authoritarian in economic matters than Republicans. In social issues, there _would_ be a tie, with the only difference being their respective goals. (you **will** do this v you **won’t** do that) There is a tie-breaker, however. You’ll find more libertarian (in the general anti-authoritarian/classic liberalism sense) minded Republicans than Democrats, mostly for economic reasons. Between the vast difference on the economic side and the slight difference on the social side, the Democratic party is the more authoritarian party. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/207 "2012-05-29T20:08:25Z")
You’re equating strong government with strongman govenrment. Big mistake. (Or maybe it’s not a mistake, just rhetorical thimblerigging.) A government can be strong and egalitarian if steps are taken so that authority rests with the collective. True authoritarianism exists when it rests only with the leader. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/208 "2012-05-29T21:00:49Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > A government can be strong and egalitarian if steps are taken so that authority rests with the collective. True authoritarianism exists when it rests only with the leader. If that’s your argument, neither party is authoritarian. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/209 "2012-05-30T18:06:36Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are? The former are restrictions that improve social mobility or protect minority rights. The latter are restrictions that impose on _personal_ sovereignty. If you can’t see the difference, you might be a Republican! Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/210 "2012-05-30T18:36:25Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > If that’s your argument, neither party is authoritarian. The parties themselves, probably not (although the GOP’s [party discipline](http://www.sunjournal.com/news/columns-analysis/2012/03/08/facts-party-discipline-neurtralizes-need-compromis/1164319) is much vaunted). The effect of their ideologies is another thing. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2012, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/211 "2012-05-30T21:02:58Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > The former are restrictions that improve social mobility or protect minority rights. The latter are restrictions that impose on _personal_ sovereignty. > > If you can’t see the difference, you might be a Republican! The only difference is motive. Both motives are supposedly “for the greater good”, but you support infringing on personal sovereignty for one, but not the other. I don’t support either. You assume I’m a Republican because I see the similarities you refuse to acknowledge, for the same reason Republicans refuse to acknowledge them. You both want to change human behavior through government mandate/prohibition and neither can understand why people don’t wan’t your “protection.” It’s two sides of the same coin. The same goes for: > [@](#): > > The effect of their ideologies is another thing. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/212 "2012-06-01T01:36:25Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > The only difference is motive. Both motives are supposedly “for the greater good”, but you support infringing on personal sovereignty for one, but not the other. I don’t support either. You assume I’m a Republican because I see the similarities you refuse to acknowledge, for the same reason Republicans refuse to acknowledge them. You both want to change human behavior through government mandate/prohibition and neither can understand why people don’t wan’t your “protection.” It’s two sides of the same coin. Utter nonsense. Let us look at your six examples: [ul] [li]Hate crime laws - Intended to protect the victims of actions that serve to intimidate an entire class of people.[/li][li]Affirmative action - Intended to protect the victims of historical discrimination and to compensate for the long-term effects of same[/li][li]Fanatical political correctness - Well, I don’t think that really counts as a Democratic platform plank, and it’s a rather biased phrasing you’ve chosen here.[/li][li]Abortion restrictions - A tough one, as this could be seen as protecting innocent fetuses from unnecessary death. I’ll concede it.[/li][li]Traditional marriage - A completely unnecessary restriction. There’s no “protecting” involved in prohibiting gay marriage; no straight marriage is in any way affected by allowing gay marriage.[/li][li]School prayer - Again, nothing is being protected by laws forcing school prayer (except maybe Christian privilege), and it’s blatantly against the First Amendment in any case.[/li][/ul] In my response to you, I was mainly focusing on the first and second cases compared to the fifth and sixth. You may find the first and second cases misguided; you may find them inappropriate. And that’s fine. But surely you must acknowledge that they come from a desire not to impose authority, but to redress the effects of authority being imposed? (Even the third is surely motivated similarly, to the extent it exists.) The fifth and sixth cases, on the other hand, are attempts more akin to what the first and second are attempting to redress. They are attempts to impose one’s own morality on the rest of society – the very definition of authoritarianism. To equate the attempt to compensate for and prohibit future offenses against personal liberty, to _actual_ offenses against personal liberty is disingenuous at best. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/213 "2012-06-01T03:37:24Z")
[ul] [li]Hate crime laws - Imposing your morality on others by criminalizing thoughts you don’t like and introducing sentencing phase arguments into the guilt/innocence phase of a trial.[/li][li]Affirmative action - Imposing your morality on others by mandatory racial preferencing.[/li][li]_Fanatical_ political correctness - (as opposed to reasonable requests for politeness) Imposing your morality on others by belittling the very people you’re trying to protect based on the assumption they cannot deal with things people say. (this is more about Democrat supporters than the party)[/li][/ul] Why is it only “imposing your morality on others” when you disagree with the morality being imposed? Compensating for previous offenses against personal liberty, with more offenses against personal liberty is still an offense against personal liberty. I know I know “It’s only wrong when _they_ do it, because they are evil and I am good.” _They_ say the same about what you want. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/214 "2012-06-01T21:03:13Z")
The thing is, people in favor of small government tend to push for either a) total _laissez-faire_, in a minority of cases, or b) most often a vision of personal liberty that is shaped, consciously or not, by White Protestant notions of a God-given moral code. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/215 "2012-06-02T18:19:02Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > The thing is, people in favor of small government tend to push for either a) total _laissez-faire_, in a minority of cases, or b) most often a vision of personal liberty that is shaped, consciously or not, by White Protestant notions of a God-given moral code. Even if that’s true, it doesn’t change the fact that many so-called liberals want to use government power to force their morality on others. It’s the same thing, but for different reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/216 "2012-06-03T01:09:31Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Compensating for previous offenses against personal liberty, with more offenses against personal liberty is still an offense against personal liberty. I know I know “It’s only wrong when _they_ do it, because they are evil and I am good.” _They_ say the same about what you want. You’re blinded by your own biases against both sides. Obviously the two sides can disagree. All I’m saying is that it’s neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to favor limitations on personal liberty that benefit the underprivileged, while opposing limitations on personal liberty that are only “for your own good”. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/217 "2012-06-03T01:44:10Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > All I’m saying is that it’s neither inconsistent nor hypocritical to favor limitations on personal liberty that benefit the underprivileged, while opposing limitations on personal liberty that are only “for your own good”. That’s just your way of rationalizing your belief that it’s OK to impose morality on others, so long as it’s your morality being imposed. I’m sure you completely believe that. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/218 "2012-06-03T03:20:11Z")
What’s hypocritical, is to say that it’s only a restriction on personal liberty when you disagree with the purpose of the restriction on personal liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/219 "2012-06-04T19:12:42Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > What’s hypocritical, is to say that it’s only a restriction on personal liberty when you disagree with the purpose of the restriction on personal liberty. No, you’re still imposing your preferred reading on what I’m writing. Let’s review. You said: > [@ABraut](#): > > Why is it that people who insist on heavy government involvement in social issues e.g. hate crime laws, affirmative action, fanatical political correctness, etc. say that people who want to impose other morality laws e.g. abortion restrictions, traditional marriage, school prayer, etc. are more authoritarian than they are? That’s the original question I’m addressing. You asked how someone can support a) b) and c) while claiming that d) e) and f) are more authoritarian in nature. I explained the differences between the first set and the second set (with caveats, of course). I never said they were _completely_ different, that one set restricted personal liberty and the other did not, or anything like that. What I said was that they are not _the same_. They are not identical. They may be morally comparable in your moral framework, but there are real differences, and those real differences are sufficient justification for drawing a distinction to people with other moral frameworks. First and foremost, it is the primary role of a government to impose _some_ moral limitations on the actions of its people. Obvious examples include prohibition of murder and theft. Those certainly restrict personal liberty, yet we all accept them as necessary restrictions, because to allow them would be a _greater_ threat to personal liberty. Likewise, the examples you cite of liberal authoritarianism – hate crime laws, affirmative action, and “fanatical political correctness” (whatever that means) – do indeed restrict personal liberty. But like laws against murder, the goal of these restrictions is to avoid an even _more egregious_ threat against personal liberty – namely, the ability for all individuals to participate fully in society without oppression. The goal – even if you disagree with the success rate – is a net positive effect on personal liberties. You lose some, but you gain more. The examples you cite of conservative authoritarianism (abortion aside, for the moment), on the other hand, hold no such benefit. There is no threat against personal liberty that can be stopped by prohibiting gay marriage. So from a purely libertarian point of view, there’s no reason for that prohibition. You lose some personal liberty with no corresponding benefit. It’s a net negative effect. Again – you may disagree with the efficacy of these efforts, or you may say that no positive gain in personal liberty is worth restricting personal liberty even the slightest bit – but you cannot reasonably claim that there is no difference between prohibiting gay marriage and prohibiting hate crimes. In the context of personal liberties, there is a very big difference, and those of us who chose to recognize that difference deserve no scorn from you. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127/220 "2012-06-04T21:23:43Z")
Anti gay marriage and Affirmative Action laws violate the principle of free association. Hate crime laws violate free thought/speech principles. The violence should be punished, and the motives considered separately in the sentencing phase, not made a separate crime that presumes guilt of the original crime. From a libertarian point of view, there’s no justification for any of these. I don’t know where you got the idea that I said some of them are. Saying that murder laws infringe on personal liberty is completely ridiculous. Unjustified homicide is the biggest violation of personal liberty possible. Violence, except in self defense, is not a right. Free association, free speech, and free thought are rights. This is false equivocation, to justify your belief that imposing your morality on others through government power is acceptable. It’s only wrong when you disagree with the morality being imposed, to you. It’s clear that I’ll never convince you otherwise. Your refusal to understand that political correctness can be carried too far by fanatics, is proof of that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blue-states-smarter-than-red-states/610127.md?page=12)