The town I grew up in Arkansas is near the top of a lot of very questionable lists: lowest per capita income, highest rate of high school dropouts, lowest number of high school degrees per capita, lowest number of college degrees per capita, etc.
Basically, it’s incredibly poor and literally ignorant and is among the poorest and most ignorant in a state not known for being full of the rich or well educated and recently tossed out its last Democrat Senator for a deeply conservative Republican.
And I guarantee the poor whites in town aren’t voting D or simply not showing up at the polls. Based on my Facebook feed, the town’s white population skews deeply conservative, even among the under 30 set.
And that’s the case for most of rural Arkansas (which is not particular rich or well educated), so I’m scratching my head at this particular assertion of yours.
Actually, quite a bit of commonality. Military bases did not get places randomly - one party states (formerly Dem, now Republican) had longer term representatives who got more power and thus got more bases. Clearly the people who brought them into a state did it because lots of voters saw benefits.
Now taxes affect both sides also. This usually comes up when it is noted that the same states whining about high taxes also get the most benefit from them - more than they pay. It is kind of hard to allocate federal money and its multiplier effect perfectly to a single person, but I bet the well to do car dealer near a military base benefits more from it than a poor person in the country. So taking gross averages seems pretty fair. On the average the person from Alabama gets more back from his federal tax dollar than the person from California.
A few things to point out. It’s very possible to be just a high school graduate or a high school drop out and not be poor. I’ve met countless plumbers, contractors, carpenters, construction workers, landscapers or salesmen who lack college, and in many cases even high school degrees without being poor.
Beyond that, anecdotal evidence and Facebook feeds are hardly the most compelling of evidence.
I’d recommend anyone interested in this subject read Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way they Do by Columbia University Political Science professor Andrew Gelman which uses empirical research to destroy many of the myths cherished by both progressives and conservatives for different reasons when it comes to the poor.
Gelman closely examines all the voting patterns in “red states” and “blue states” and finds that the beliefs about poor people “voting against their interest” and voting Republican is complete crap.
In fact poor people vote virtually the same everywhere in the US. What really drives the red state-blue state divide is the dramatic cultural differences between the wealthy and the middle class(particularly the upper-middle class) in the Red States vs. the Blue States.
That’s why some of the wealthiest sections of the country in Connecticut, New York, and California overwhelmingly vote Democratic while their counterparts in Mississippi, Tennessee etc. overwhelmingly vote Republican while the poor of both states have virtually identical voting patterns(which of course also includes not voting).
The idea of ignorant white people collecting food stamps in their trailer parks voting Republican may make progressives feel intellectually and morally superior, but there’s little evidence to support the idea that it’s widespread.
Looking at this map of military bases in the continental U.S., they do look fairly random, at least in regard to one-party states (to the extend that even exists). The South might be a bit overrepresented, but the dense thicket of (presumably Naval) bases on the northeast and Pacific coasts balances that nicely. The plains states and the Pacific Northwest are underrepresented, but outside of that, distribution is fairly even. If there’s a bias, it looks to be as much toward populated areas with warm weather or coastline as anything else.
States can’t whine about anything, only people can, and no state is uniformly made up of supporters of one or the other major party. Also, the people getting the benefits might not be the people that are doing the whining.
The poor person is getting direct benefits that the car dealer isn’t, so the impact of different types of spending can’t, to my mind, be reduced to a simple average. We can calculate the impact of Social Security checks, because they are direct payments. What’s the impact of a military base, or an Indian reservation, or a grant to a university, or a purchase from a defense contractor? It’s not nothing, but how does it compare to a check in the mail? I’ve no idea.
Keeping in mind the above caveats about the impact of different types of spending, to the extent this is the case, it’s because Alabamians on average are older and poorer. than Californians. This sort of criticism feels exactly like the “lucky duckies” rhetoric about people who pay no federal income tax.