When looking at objective measurements like per capita income, education levels, job prospects, and other metrics usually used to indicate “a nice place to live in”, there seems to be a general correlation where Red states fall below Blue states.
So I suppose my question is what goes though right-wing Tea Party types mind?
Do they see the world in some fundamentally different way where a more rural, less developed style of living is considered far superior to the more urban, educated, cultural centers on the coasts?
Do they think their lower standard of living is due to the “Liberals” destroying the larger economy or something?
Income might be lower in some states but so is the cost of living. I could live like a king in a castle with my current salary in some states. But then again I wouldn’t get my current salary there either so it evens out. I like living here because its home and my family is here but I have spent a good deal of time in various so-called Red States. Some very nice places to live.
His problem, though: where is the parts to cut loose? how do we keep the environs of Emory University in Atlanta, especially the Egyptologists who work there, but cut Bakersfield CA loose?
Yes, absolutely. I am surprised you don’t know that. There are people who are plenty proud to be simple country folks and would much rather live on a farm in Kansas than anywhere close to NYC for example. Not everyone covets the same type of lifestyle and the yuppie lifestyle doesn’t appeal to many people that could do it if they wanted to. I think I almost fall into that category even though I have lived in several places and currently reside in the Boston area. They are plenty of people who wouldn’t live in Manhattan, Boston or San Francisco if you paid them to do it.
You are making some common but bigoted assumptions in this OP however. The people with real power in the Red states are usually well educated, well traveled and very wealthy themselves. They aren’t waiting for their invitation to high society New York social events because they already have their own in Dallas, New Orleans or Atlanta. Not all Red states are doing that badly either. Texas in general (the 2nd largest state by population and among the redest of the red) is doing quite well economically by any measure and there are lots pockets of success spread among the others including Alabama and Mississippi.
I am one of those people. I live on 15 acres in rural Ohio, and *love *it. I wouldn’t move to a big city (or even the metro area of one) if my salary was quadrupled.
One also has to distinguish between Southern and the Midwestern/Plains rural cultures. While both are quite religious and socially conservative, statistics have indicated that the latter have far higher high school graduation rates and average life-spans (indeed people in the the latter category lives longer than the average suburban white).
Just for giggles I looked up the current US Rep. for my High School. GOP - no surprise, as it is a small but (at least used to be, before all the manufacturing jobs left) relatively wealthy town in S. IN.
His site’s big point of the week: How Disastrous Obamacare will be for the Schools!
His entry under “shutdown” was a cut & paste of some FAQ to the effect that everybody’s going to get their SS, VA, Medicare, etc., but the parks (just the Feds, our 100% proper State ones) will close
Yes, they really do think everybody is out to get them and destroy the God-Inspired American Way of Life.
I also lived in Naptown (Indianapolis - the locals hate that name) for 2 years. Reading the Star Editorials, I noticed that the stuff on the right side wasn’t quite as looney as on the left.
Then I learned that it was intended as an op-ed, and those loons were actually considered the “opposing” views :rolleyes:
Yes, they actually do believe in this crap.
Now that the printed word is not the only source of news and opinion, perhaps the power of the newspaper conglomerates such as the old Hearst will wane - The Naptown Star is/was owned by Gannet, which also owned the Phoenix Sun (? -whatever the name), possibly more guaranteeing the same editorial slant.
Hearst is gone, now it’s Murdock’s turn to become irrelevant.
I think it safe to write off the Moonies (Washington Times)
Because we aren’t using your objective measurements.
I was at a family gathering this weekend with my extremely conservative, red-state relatives. Our host was the typical (to us) high-school educated conservative blue-collar worker in the South. He invited us to his beautiful 3000 sq ft home in a roomy, well-kept neighborhood that would literally cost millions in the NE. He is typical of my extended family. Per-capita income and education levels can be meaningless indicators of well-being (imo). For me personally, my corporate peers* in the “blue” NE can make almost 200% of my salary, but I’m the one who can have a private plane, thousands of acres of private hunting land and a small cabin cruiser on the lake outside my window. This lifestyle is literally impossible for them.
Since my family lives in Texas, the bad economy has mostly been something we watch on TV. I can’t speak for everywhere, but I view my “less developed” style of living as a slice of heaven compared to that of the blue states**
Diff’rent strokes, I guess.
*based on the published salary/location structure for my company, I don’t know their actual incomes.
**I’ve lived in the large cities in PNW and CA, and spent considerable business-trip time in the NE corridor, and lived in Europe for a few years. All of them seemed a vision of hell to me.
I think that being low income (pullin has a good point about costs of living so I won’t use “poor”), rural, and conservative have a natural correlation in the current political environment.
First of all, the low income and rural. Office-style upper middle class jobs will naturally go to concentrations of population and there are only so many farm managers and owner slots possible. Plus like pullin said you can get by on less due to cost of living.
Taxes also tend to be lower because income of rural states is subsidized by the federal government. Defense and road dollars partly reflect area in addition to population; lower income means that more people qualify for federal welfare and are taxed less federally; and ag subsidies favor the midwest rural states. (One exception to this rule is Texas, interestingly enough, which is one of the few red states to gives more than it gets from the federal government.)
So imagine you are a middle class worker or farmer in a rural location. You get by on not more than the minimum wage. You hear about all these rich states on the coasts that have enormous wealth, sky high taxes, and still have budget issues. Naturally you think “wow, those liberal states can’t do anything right, they squander everything on welfare and big government! Here we get by with very little taxes and we do it all ourselves.” If you do not actually know that your state is most likely a huge recipient of aid from the federal government, then it is easy to consider your state a rugged individualist place and to support the party with rugged individualism as its mantra.
Certainly the low cost of living is appealing. We have friends who moved out of New York and now live in a mansion in North Carolina (although NC doesn’t appear to be as red as some other red states.)
But wouldn’t that be socialism? :eek:
Actually, that does sound kind of awesome.
Although it sounds like you have a professional job. How would you describe the standard of living or advancement opportunities for people who don’t have similar types of jobs?
I do know that. My wife tends to prefer a more rural lifestyle than our current situation. She also skews more to the right than I do.
Tea Partier here
We do resent the fact that is seems big city liberals think there’s something wrong with our lifestyle (house and SUV in the suburbs), while we don’t think theirs anything wrong with there’s (loft and bicycle downtown). Sometimes you even here them talking about how they feel sorry for us because we have no use for downtown (except maybe working there), and we go to Applebee’s for dinner, if we go at all. Recently I got into an argument with an inner city type who thought we should narrow all our streets to make them more pedestrian friendly and car unfriendly. If I wanted that I would have bought a loft downtown, not a house in the suburbs.
As has been pointed out, the same house that costs a millions dollars in the Bay area can be bought for a hundred grand in Mississippi, so income and education level aren’t the only metrics of lifestyle. I think most conservatives know it’s actually Republican policies that hurt the economy in those areas, but to us (as I’ve pointed out several times before) it would be worse to have someone that doesn’t agree with us on social issues in office, so we vote against our own economic interest to prevent that.
What social policies? Is it important to you that not everyone gets to marry the person he/she loves? Or do you hate the idea of people having sex and “getting away with it”? Or do you hate that whole freedom of religion thing? Are you looking for the North vs. South decision to be overturned?
