It’s a little more complex than that. In the deep south, for example, white people of all classes vote overwhelmingly Republican, and there’s a substantial influence of religion, ethnicity, etc. on voting patterns (i.e. non-Orthodox Jews vote Democratic, Dutch Americans and Scotch-Irish vote Republican, etc.). The income correlation is probably weaker in America than in many other countries.
For what it’s worth, white people in New Jersey are less likely to vote Democratic than white people in Iowa.
Right-wingers value self-reliance and dog-eat-dog economics. Progressives favor cooperation and compassion. Contrary to simplistic hyperlibertarian economics, cooperation and compassion can improve prosperity.
Also, the red states tend to have poor schools. Uneducated people are more likely to fall for inane sound-bite rhetoric.
How so? According to your link, Mississippi has the income per capita of around 20,000. Which would rank among the poorest in Europe (lower than Greece, Portugal or Russia).
A concept put forward by Richard Florida was that many large cities offer tolerance of diversity, which attracts people who are intelligent and talented (hipsters, liberals, artists, etc). These people are attracted to the culture and diversity of large cities, they then help start and contribute to companies that bring wealth into the cities.
States like NY and California are wealthy because of a handful of cities within those states (NYC, the bay area, San Diego, LA, etc) make up a bulk of the states population which contribute heavily to business, science, academia and art. Throw in the massive minority population and that is probably much of the ansewr.
Yes, ask the Koch brothers, or the Bushes, or Donald Trump, or Mitt Romney. Or anyone connected to the investment banking, oil or firearm industries.
Ah…no. Generally one needs a college degree to hold down a management job at the UN or at a large company.
And we salute their sacrifice. What the fuck that has to do with what we are discussing here escapes me.
Most of these arguments have their basis in racism and not economic fact. The facts are, as demonstrated by waves of immigration since the beginning of the country, is that immigrants who come here ultimately integrate into society and make it stronger.
Yes, ideas that include tolerance, acceptance, economic and religious freedom, education, free markets regulated against excess and manipulation, education and general common sense.
When did Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Alabama ever become “rich states”?
And vice versa, I would say. In many locations, corporations were as much or more of a force in the creation of social networks, universal schooling and decent working conditions as unions; industrialists realized that one, a healthy and educated workforce produces better than a sickly uneducated one, and two, if you build decent housing the workers can afford you can sell it to them and sell a lot more houses than if you only build mansions. Even for those who weren’t particularly “nice” people, it really was a benefit to take care of the workers. Some chose to do it through paternalistic policies, some by policies that didn’t limit the workers’ freedom. Those aren’t necessarily locations where things went smoothly, but there was as much friction between unions with different points of view or industrialists with different points of view as between the two classes.
It isn’t asinine, because it’s the truth. Issues like gun control, abortion, and gay rights mean more to some people than food stamps do. When the very essence of your culture is morally opposed to what the Democratic party is selling, what else can you do but vote against them, even if it means you’re voting “against your interests?”
Maybe. But a guy down on the bottom rung derives one direct benefit from a new immigrant - he gets to step up to the second-from-the-bottom rung.
It’s the old story. The Germans were glad to see the Irish arrive and take their place at the bottom. Then the Irish welcomed the Italians to the bottom spot. And then the Italians welcomed the Puerto Ricans and then the Puerto Ricans welcomed the Dominicans.
Here is an interesting article* that points to the problems of the most religious states in the US, and their relatively high Republican representation. The thrust of the article is that the religious right has had a strongly negative effect on the economic development, as well as social development (toward liberal policies) in those states.
To me, the question in the OP should be “does the higher level of freedom and economic development in the more liberal states prove that liberal ideals are better?” and the evidence seems to say “yes”.
*granted, this comes from HuffPost, does not have citations, and the statistics seem cherry picked. I still think that it points to major advantages of having a liberal government.
I agree and disagree. Generally im in favour of more liberal social policy, or at least a libertarian one. An open, tolerant government and state can help attract the best and the brightest. I think it misleading though to equate historic progressive policies with what we today consider as progressive. It’s far too early to tell if modern progressive policies work in the long term. It takes a generation or three for the consequences of certain policies to become fully realised. It could just as easily be pointed to that progressive cities are the ones most likely to go bankrupt in recent years.
Its also worth pointing out in regards to your previous link that many of these poor States were just as poor under Democrat politicians as they are under Republican ones. They were dirt poor as Blue States and they are still dirt poor as Red States.
This is quite silly. I’m a liberal in the sense that I support economic redistributionism through a universal social welfare state but I’m not for multiculturalism and I have little but contempt for the NIMBY/latte liberals who lived in gated communities and send their children to private schools (same with their conservative counterparts obviously). Also have you noticed that many of the proponents of war on the right never served in the military or at least avoided combat (for starters pretty much the entire Bush administration)? Or that it is generally the Republican Party which pushes for free trade?