# Does anyone oppose big money in politics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693 "2015-03-22T16:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/21 "2015-03-22T22:10:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Recent decades” does not include 1974. That was over 40 years ago. Shall we talk about The Party of Lincoln next? Are we going to argue about precise timeframes now? What I showed is that four decades ago the kinds of legislation that today’s Republicans would vociferously condemn in no uncertain terms, as they have with the ACA, were part of mainstream Republican thought. QED. Tracing these changes year by year is obviously more difficult, though the previously linked cites make some effort to do so; as with all gradual changes, they’re characterized by the cumulative effect of small changes that often pass unnoticed. I would argue that the most dramatic change in recent years occurred as a conservative backlash to the election of Obama, symbolized by the rise of the so-called Tea Party and the prominence of lunatics like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, and others. That this has occurred despite the fact that Obama is arguably the most conservative Democrat in living memory speaks volumes about the present political climate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/22 "2015-03-22T22:35:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Are we going to argue about precise timeframes now? What I showed is that four decades ago the kinds of legislation that today’s Republicans would vociferously condemn in no uncertain terms, as they have with the ACA, were part of mainstream Republican thought. QED. Not really. I guess we can ask **septimus** what he meant by “recent decades”, but I’m assuming it means “since the 1980s”. Would anyone say “in recent decades, we’ve seen the US end it’s involvement in the Vietnam War”. But also keep in mind that one party often opposes proposals made by the other party’s president simply for partisan reasons. Is that not the meme concerning the current GOP— oppose anything Obama proposes, just because he proposes it? That is not to say the same GOP would oppose a similar policy if proposed by President Romney. It’s also unclear to me that the proposal Nixon made was equivalent to the ~ 2,000 page ACA, with all it’s rules and regulations. Or, that it would have passed a Republican Controlled Congress (or a Democratic controlled Congress, for that matter). Like I said earlier, you need to focus on party platform or actual legislation if you want to prove one party has moved in one direction or another. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/23 "2015-03-22T22:44:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like I said earlier, you need to focus on party platform or actual legislation if you want to prove one party has moved in one direction or another. Party platforms may be their “official” stance but has either party really adhered to their platform in practice? In short the platform is a showpiece that neither side comes close to implementing. As such I do not think it is something you can hang you hat on and use as an indication of either party’s goals. It is marketing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/24 "2015-03-22T22:49:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Party platforms may be their “official” stance but has either party really adhered to their platform in practice? > > In short the platform is a showpiece that neither side comes close to implementing. As such I do not think it is something you can hang you hat on and use as an indication of either party’s goals. It is marketing. You’re right. I should have suggesting using “actual legislation” also. 😉 But I think party platforms can be useful, in that they do change over time, and when they do, they can indicate a shift. They’re not perfect, but they are good data points. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/25 "2015-03-22T22:55:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Like I said earlier, you need to focus on party platform or actual legislation if you want to prove one party has moved in one direction or another. As others pointed just looking at past Platforms is not good enough, but if we do… > **[Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/)** > > Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re > [@](#): > > Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal > [@](#): > > The 2012 platform doesn’t mention two of the meme’s seven items from 1956 – unemployment benefits and equal pay for women. > > **The bottom line, then, is that on most of these issues, the GOP moved to the right between 1956 and 2012, though the degree of that shift has varied somewhat issue by issue.** > > What historians say > > We asked scholars whether the contrast between the two platforms is noteworthy, and they generally agreed that it was. > > Delton noted that the Republican Party in the 1950s was divided between moderates (including Eisenhower) and conservatives. She said the moderates controlled the process of platform-writing in 1956, but they threw a few bones to conservatives in certain portions of the document. For instance, the platform said the government wouldn’t sign a treaty or enter into an international agreement in violation of individual rights – an issue that continues to energize conservatives decades later – and there’s a plank about a balanced budget, which was seen as a conservative position. > > The seven items listed in the meme were supported by moderates, Delton said. At the time, she said, “conservatives would have focused, with horror, on the very items the meme highlights.” > > Eisenhower was facing a Democratic Congress in 1956 and didn’t want to try to reverse the New Deal, Anderson said. “If the point is that Eisenhower was not as extreme as Republicans today, it is accurate.” > > Our ruling > > The meme says the 1956 Republican Party platform supported equal pay, the minimum wage, asylum for refugees, protections for unions and more. > > That’s generally correct. However, it’s worth noting that other elements of the 1956 platform were considered conservative for that era. Also, some of the issues have changed considerably between 1956 and 2012, such as the shift from focusing on post-war refugees to focusing on illegal immigration. > > The claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/26 "2015-03-22T23:13:08Z")
Give it up guys, there is obviously no true Scotsman in John’s book. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/27 "2015-03-22T23:49:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As others pointed just looking at past Platforms is not good enough, but if we do… Very interesting, although I find the original analysis to be quite a stretch. Still, when filtered thru the paper’s fact checking process, there does seem to be some truth to the claim, even if the chief person quoted put a pretty big caveat on the analysis: > [@](#): > > If the point is that Eisenhower was not as extreme as Republicans today, it is accurate. But I can do the same comparison to the [GOP platform of 1964](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25840) and reach pretty much the same conclusion. That Platform looks oddly “modern”, in the sense of looking a lot like the GOP of today. Here’s the opening themes: > [@](#): > > 1. Every person has the right to govern himself, to fix his own goals, and to make his own way with a minimum of governmental interference. > > 2. It is for government to foster and maintain an environment of freedom encouraging every individual to develop to the fullest his God-given powers of mind, heart and body; and, beyond this, government should undertake only needful things, rightly of public concern, which the citizen cannot himself accomplish. > > We Republicans hold that these two principles must regain their primacy in our government’s relations, not only with the American people, but also with nations and peoples everywhere in the world. > > 1. Within our Republic the Federal Government should act only in areas where it has Constitutional authority to act, and then only in respect to proven needs where individuals and local or state governments will not or cannot adequately perform. Great power, whether governmental or private, political or economic, must be so checked, balanced and restrained and, where necessary, so dispersed as to prevent it from becoming a threat to freedom any place in the land. > > 2. It is a high mission of government to help assure equal opportunity for all, affording every citizen an equal chance at the starting line but never determining who is to win or lose. But government must also reflect the nation’s compassionate concern for those who are unable, through no fault of their own, to provide adequately for themselves. > > 3. Government must be restrained in its demands upon and its use of the resources of the people, remembering that it is not the creator but the steward of the wealth it uses; that its goals must ever discipline its means; and that service to all the people, never to selfish or partisan ends, must be the abiding purpose of men entrusted with public power. I think one weakness we can see in these platforms is that, as political statements, their content depends to some degree on whether there is a Republican or Democrat in the WH. With a Democrat in the WH, they focus on the 'bad" things the president has done, but with a Republican in the WH, the focus in on the “good” things the president has done. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/28 "2015-03-23T00:46:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Not really. I guess we can ask **septimus** what he meant by “recent decades”, but I’m assuming it means “since the 1980s”. Would anyone say “in recent decades, we’ve seen the US end it’s involvement in the Vietnam War”. It’s silly to argue about whether we should be measuring from the 80s rather than from the 70s as in my example, or from the 50s or from the 90s. Increasing conservatism on many issues can be seen using almost any of those times as starting points, though the contrast between the present and the 60s and 70s is probably the most dramatic. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But also keep in mind that one party often opposes proposals made by the other party’s president simply for partisan reasons. Is that not the meme concerning the current GOP— oppose anything Obama proposes, just because he proposes it? That is not to say the same GOP would oppose a similar policy if proposed by President Romney. It’s also unclear to me that the proposal Nixon made was equivalent to the ~ 2,000 page ACA, with all it’s rules and regulations. Or, that it would have passed a Republican Controlled Congress (or a Democratic controlled Congress, for that matter). Are you still trying to argue that an ongoing shift to the right has not been happening over the past 5 decades or so despite all the evidence, and despite the particularly visible changes during the Obama era, and the prominence of some of the hard-right extremists that currently infest American politics? That someone like Ted Cruz is seriously contemplating a presidential run is just mind boggling to any sane moderate on _ **either** _ side of the aisle. As for Romney, you may recall that he was desperately trying to distance himself from Romneycare – the health care reform policy that Republicans wanted from President Romney was a complete repeal of the ACA, which is just what he promised them. And as for Nixon’s plan, you don’t have to take the cited article’s interpretation to understand that it was much like the ACA – you can [read Nixon’s own words](http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/nixon-proposal/). Any Republican who dared say anything like that today would be run out of town! ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/29 "2015-03-23T02:06:00Z")
Back to the money in politics issue… from the POV of someone who is not in either big tent party, the money is a bad thing. As a liberal, yes, I am more annoyed by the koch contributions than the Bloomberg contributions, but only marginally. I am highly annoyed that some people get to hsve more influence in a democracy because they have more money. While I am an idealist at heart, I am also a pragmatist. In our current situation, I have the options of my vote being ignored (voting 3rd party) or voting for the party that openly panders to the rich-white-straight-Christians, or voting for the party that still pretends to like the little guy, given those choices I will vote for the more reasonable side. Do I dislike the current dems? Hell yes! Do I like everything that Obama has done? No, but I do think that he has done things that McCain and Romney would not have done. I think Obama has minimized our involvement in ME wars - McCain would have tried to get us in a ground war in Iran by now. Would I prefer someone who was even more of a peacenik? Yes, but given the options in the last few elections, I voted for the dem. I am also convinced that a Gore presidency would have taken the threat of AQ seriously and had a much better chance of stopping 9/11. And even if 9/11 had still happened under Gore, I seriously doubt he would have gone to war in Iraq. Ideally I would like to make the law so that only real people who can vote in a given election can contribute to it, and make that limited to around $500 to $1,000 total political contributions per person, per year, fully refundable on taxes for those that make less than median income. I would also like some form of proportional representation for legislators in multiple position races (get rid of districts for Representatives in states), and instant runoff for executives and other single position elections (like the single seat senate elections) - I think that would give 3rd parties a chance and allow those of us on the fringes to be heard. There is about zero chance that any reforms in my preferred direction will take place while we have unlimited campaign contributions. So, given that the “other” side is taking big money, I am ok with the people closer to “my” side taking money for reasons of balance, but I would prefer it if there were much less money in politics over all. Also, “Whack-a-mole” is the perfect screen name for this argument with goal-post-moving John Mace. I still think that the statement “the major parties have moved to the right over the last few decades” is consistent with pointing out more liberal platforms of the past 40 or 60 years and comparing them to the more conservative platforms of today, but I may be misunderstanding the terms “move” , “right”, and “decades”. Please post a cite that I am missing the meanings of those words. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/30 "2015-03-23T02:13:45Z")
> [@DagNation](#): > > In our current situation, I have the options of my vote being ignored (voting 3rd party) or voting for the party that openly panders to the rich-white-straight-Christians, or voting for the party that still pretends to like the little guy, given those choices I will vote for the more reasonable side. The dilemma presented is imaginary. Your one vote is ignored no matter for whom you vote. And if you counter with “my one vote may be ignored, but in aggregate with other similar votes it isn’t”, then that is just as true if you voted for 3rd party and so did the others who think like you. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/31 "2015-03-23T02:54:01Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The dilemma presented is imaginary. Your one vote is ignored no matter for whom you vote. And if you counter with “my one vote may be ignored, but in aggregate with other similar votes it isn’t”, then that is just as true if you voted for 3rd party and so did the others who think like you. I’m not sure what you believe you’re refuting here since **DagNation** has a perfectly valid point, namely that third parties frequently cause vote splitting when there are two major close candidates, usually affecting one of them disproportionately, and it can affect the outcome of an election. Al Gore may well have been President if Ralph Nader had stayed home and written another book instead of meddling in the election. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/32 "2015-03-23T02:57:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’m not sure what you believe you’re refuting here since **DagNation** has a perfectly valid point, namely that third parties frequently cause vote splitting when there are two major close candidates, usually affecting one of them disproportionately, and it can affect the outcome of an election. Al Gore may well have been President if Ralph Nader had stayed home and written another book instead of meddling in the election. I have no idea how you figured that was **DagNation** ’s point. Nothing in his post even hints at this. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/33 "2015-03-23T03:20:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I have no idea how you figured that was **DagNation** ’s point. Nothing in his post even hints at this. My comment was badly phrased. I was adding to what he said about a third party vote being ignored, namely that it’s worse than just being ignored, it can skew the election by drawing votes away from the mainstream candidates in a disproportionate way. Your statement was “_The dilemma presented is imaginary. Your one vote is ignored no matter for whom you vote._” No, the dilemma is quite real. There is a good and valid reason for not voting for a dark horse third party. It’s an unfortunate Catch-22 in a two-party system, but it’s not “imaginary”. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/34 "2015-03-23T03:30:14Z")
A conservative is someone who believes that change must happen slowly, a reactionary is someone who believes change just be undone to a previous arrangement. I don’t think there is or will be a GOP candidate in this cycle that doesn’t want to roll back plenty of laws in existence for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/35 "2015-03-23T03:53:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Your statement was “_The dilemma presented is imaginary. Your one vote is ignored no matter for whom you vote._” No, the dilemma is quite real. There is a good and valid reason for not voting for a dark horse third party. No, there isn’t. There has not been even one federal election race in the history of the country that was decided by one vote. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/36 "2015-03-23T04:29:12Z")
You’re playing a ridiculous semantic game. I didn’t say anything about “winning by one vote”. **In the real world** of American politics as presently constituted, third-party candidates are almost always dark horses with zero chance of being elected. Voting for such a candidate is _ **at best** _ throwing away your vote. At worst, it might help elect the candidate _ **farthest removed** _ from your ideology. The two-party system is problematic that way. A dilemma, you might say. And not imaginary. Whatever it is you’re trying to rationalize is just argumentative nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/37 "2015-03-23T04:43:53Z")
What is problematic is the fact that a candidate _could_ win by one vote. What would that even mean? It would mean that half the district/state voted against the winner, so half the voters are disappointed or pissed off, but fundamentally unrepresented. In my district, I might as well not even bother, because my rep, my state senator and my state reps will all be from the other party. Which basically means I get no direct representation. Taking the money out of the game is not going to fix that. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/38 "2015-03-23T05:46:24Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > […] a third party vote being ignored, namely that it’s worse than just being ignored, it can skew the election by drawing votes away from the mainstream candidates in a disproportionate way. […] There is a good and valid reason for not voting for a dark horse third party. It’s an unfortunate Catch-22 in a two-party system, but it’s not “imaginary”. I did not say that, but I do happen to agree that Ralph Nader, along with out-of-state ballot counters, and other shenanigans, probably caused Gore to not win 2000. On the other hand, Perot voters in 92 handed that election to Clinton, and I am OK with that. > [@eschereal](#): > > […] In my district, I might as well not even bother, because my rep, my state senator and my state reps will all be from the other party. Which basically means I get no direct representation. I agree, but getting the money out would be a good step toward making our representatives represent the voters and not the big money. Big money probably helped to create the worst of the gerrymandered districts in the 2010 cycle. So getting the big money influence out of gerrymandering is one way that you could see a real improvement in your representation. I think that we could have much better representation with big money removed from politics, combined with a much larger House (and possibly Senate) that are elected through some combination of proportional representation and instant runoff. The first one is being discussed in the media and this thread, the rest is my fringe beliefs. The discussion on the table is money, so I don’t want to hijack any more than I already have. Money is bad, m’kay? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/39 "2015-03-23T06:55:57Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > In my district, I might as well not even bother, because my rep, my state senator and my state reps will all be from the other party. Which basically means I get no direct representation. Taking the money out of the game is not going to fix that. In the short term, probably not. But let’s look at some interesting data from [this article](http://www.citylab.com/politics/2012/02/why-america-keeps-getting-more-conservative/1162/) that I linked previously on the particular demographic that votes for a particular other party: > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li] **conservative states are considerably more religious** than liberal-leaning states. The correlation between conservative political affiliation and religion (the share of state population for which religion is an important part of daily life) has grown stronger, increasing from .63 to .70 [and] as American states become more religious, they also become more conservative.[/li][/ul] > [ul] > [li] **Conservative states are also less educated than liberal ones**. The correlation between conservative affiliation and the percent of adults who are college graduates) is also substantially higher than before (-.76 vs. -.53).[/li][/ul] > [ul] > [li] **States with more conservatives are less diverse.** Conservative political affiliation is highly negatively correlated with the percent of the population that are immigrants (–.56), or gay and lesbian ( -.60).[/li][/ul] > [ul] > [li]Conservative political affiliation is **strongly positively correlated with the percentage of a state’s workforce in blue-collar occupations** (.73), and **highly negatively correlated with the proportion of the workforce engaged in knowledge-based professional and creative work** (-.61). [/li][/ul] > [ul] > [li]States with more conservatives are **considerably less affluent** than those with more liberals. Conservative political affiliation is highly negatively correlated with state income levels (-.73) and even more so with average hourly earnings (- .77). This is in line with the findings of Andrew Gelman’s _Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State_, which finds that while rich voters favor Republicans, rich states favor Democrats.[/li][/ul] So let me cynically go out on a limb here and try to generalize the demographic that votes Republican, keeping in mind that, as the article is careful to point out, correlation doesn’t imply causation. A small part of this demographic is the wealthy, small in numbers but great in influence, who do so out of obvious self-interest. But what about the rest of the masses? The data seem to imply that they are: (a) religious (willing to take things on faith, without evidence or critical thinking), (b) less educated (less informed), (c) less diverse (less exposed to to different cultures and ideas), (d) more likely to be blue-collar than knowledge-based professionals (combining the attributes of less informed and less exposed to different ideas), and (e) less affluent (yet their views inexplicably align with the wealthy patrons of the conservative ideology, directly against their own best interests). Call me a cynic or call me devil’s advocate or just call me names – because this is not a kind view of Republicans – but this does seem to build a picture of gullible low-information voters being connived into supporting an ideology that favors a select few but not themselves, and is manifestly contrary to their own self-interest. They are, as Arthur Laffer might say, waiting for wealth and good fortune to “trickle down” on them. They’ve been waiting since the Reagan administration. During that time the gap between rich and poor has grown ever wider, the 1% ever wealthier, executive salaries have hit astronomical levels, and the middle class has stagnated. Many lost their homes during the housing fiasco. Millions still don’t have health care. Last I saw, Republicans were handing out new tax breaks to corporations while cutting food stamps. Now here’s the $64,000 question in all this. Why? How did this bizarre situation come about where the members of a particular demographic characterized by poor education and low information have have aligned themselves with the wealthy, and most importantly, what has been the role of big money in politics and in shaping political discourse in creating this state of affairs? I maintain it has been absolutely front and center. To be sure, there are certainly supportable conservative principles and certainly intelligent moderate conservatives who aren’t necessarily wealthy. But I challenge anyone to prove that there isn’t a fundamental truth in the above. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693/40 "2015-03-23T13:43:46Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You’re playing a ridiculous semantic game. I didn’t say anything about “winning by one vote”. I did, and that is what you were responding to. As in: “The dilemma presented is imaginary. Your **one vote** is ignored no matter for whom you vote” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-anyone-oppose-big-money-in-politics/715693.md?page=3)