Y'know, the word "conservative" is also demonizable

[BrainGlutton]

@Bridget_Burke

Primary Season is well underway here in Texas. Can’t watch local shows without catching numerous ads from Republican hopefuls. Who are in a contest to claim they are The Most Conservative. And their Conservatism has nothing to do with fiscal prudence or libertarianism. They are agin’ immigrants, agin’ Obama (never “President Obama”) & agin’ Obamacare. Oh, and they are for the Right To Life & Gun Rights. And Preserving Their Religious Freedom, whatever that means–ask their hero, Ted Cruz. When “the public” is shown, the failure to hire even one non-White token is evident…just so nobody misses the racist & xenophobic message.

Houston tends to vote Democratic but we’re a big city, so we’ve got lots of Republican votes here, too. Especially Outside The Loop.

I really need to catch the news because weather is changing: Cold AM & Hot PM? Hot AM & Cold PM? We’re a few weeks away from our standard “Hotter than fuck but watch the Tropics.” However, I either have to keep running for the mute button or risk vomiting.

I remember William F Buckley & even respected him. A little. These guys are giving Conservatism a bad name. Even worse than it deserves.

Well, there you are! We can work with that!

[Bridget_Burke]

@BrainGlutton

Well, there you are! We can work with that!

We don’t have to do any work. The Conservative = Batshit crowd is doing it for us…

[BrainGlutton]

I just posted the below as the OP in a GD thread. Whether the argument is sound or unsound, it could be useful for our demonization-purposes here.

Social conservatism v. economic conservatism

The difference is that economic conservatives are not always wrong and social conservatives are not always evil.

IMO and IME, economic conservatives sometimes have arguments worth listening to. But their actual, unstated motive is usually if not always to defend the interests of the haves, and that is the general tendency of their arguments whether intentional or not – in short, always evil.

Social conservatives, OTOH, while they might well be sincerely well-intentioned Christians or whatever, are always entirely wrong – not about everything, perhaps, but definitely about everything that distinguishes them from others, everything on their particular agenda.

N.B., however, there is an important corollary to that:

In politics, social issues are usually (not always) much less important than economic issues.

E.g., in America we have a lot of needless deaths by gunshot every year. But, in the general scheme of things, that is no more than a bit of oh-too-bad; it is no existential threat to American society, and unemployment blights far, far more lives than does violence armed or unarmed. The Dems (and for that matter the Pubs) should be placing much higher priority on reducing unemployment than on gun control/gun rights.

By the same token, it’s too bad gays are having such a hard time getting SSM recognized; but, they can thrive without it. What matters more than anything else is that the law no longer criminalizes sodomy, etc.

Of course, some pols (in both parties, but Pubs mainly) who understand the above perfectly are not above using social issues as a distraction or a voter-turnout spur.

[adaher]

Ah, but what if defending the interests of the haves is defending the interests of the majority? Is that evil, or is that democracy? And which side is more likely to be demonized in an argument between defending the interests of the majority vs. the interests of the minority? That’s how liberalism got demonized in the first place, because the broad middle class saw their agenda as for the have nots and against the middle class. While liberals now take care to say, “middle class middle class middle class” like it’s a mantra, I don’t really see what’s changed other than that they are scared to raise taxes now on anyone but the 1%.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Ah, but what if defending the interests of the haves is defending the interests of the majority? Is that evil, or is that democracy?

No, it is unlikely. (And democracy would be enactment of the majority’s will, not its interests, but your hypothetical assumes nothing about the majority’s will.)

@adaher

And which side is more likely to be demonized in an argument between defending the interests of the majority vs. the interests of the minority?

Conceivably both, judging from the history of the Civil Rights movement.

[adaher]

We’re talking economics here. Should the government be primarily looking out for taxpayers, or benefit receivers? Because as much as Democrats would like to shift the terms of the debate, this is the primary faultline in economic policy.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

We’re talking economics here. Should the government be primarily looking out for taxpayers, or benefit receivers? Because as much as Democrats would like to shift the terms of the debate, this is the primary faultline in economic policy.

No, it isn’t, because the “receivers” are not of sufficient numbers, except for Social Security retirees, who can’t be demonized. The primary faultline in economic policy probably would be found at some income level very significantly higher than anything a SS or welfare or unemployment recipient gets.

[adaher]

The divide between Democrats and REpublicans starts around $50,000/yr in income. With the exception of 2008, when Democrats won the rich vote, the last few elections have seen Repiublicans win above $50,000, and lose below $50,000.

That’s right about the level where almost all people pay income taxes. Below that, most people do not.

So yes, the divide is between the taxpayers and the benefit receivers, until Democrats figure out how to win taxpayers, something they haven’t been able to do since LBJ.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

The divide between Democrats and REpublicans starts around $50,000/yr in income. With the exception of 2008, when Democrats won the rich vote, the last few elections have seen Repiublicans win above $50,000, and lose below $50,000.

That’s right about the level where almost all people pay income taxes. Below that, most people do not.

I always have paid taxes in years where my income was below $50k (all years) or even below $40k or $30k (most years). And I mean income tax; FICA/Social Security tax I paid even as a minimum-wage fast-food worker (everyone does, though really they shouldn’t, but progressivizing the FICA is a different debate).

[adaher]

I did too, becuase I was single and a renter. I figure that’s why Republicans win any voters at all under $50,000/yr. Those are probably income tax payers.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

I did too, becuase I was single and a renter. I figure that’s why Republicans win any voters at all under $50,000/yr. Those are probably income tax payers.

Can you cite any stats correlating voting behavior or party ID with tax burden?

[adaher]

Nope. I can only infer it from income, which is reasonable, because just over 50% of Americans pay taxes and median income is just under $50K. It would be nice if pollsters would ask, though. Both about taxation and what federal cash benefits a voter receives.

[Lance_Turbo]

adaher, if I were to calculate the correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) between per capita federal tax burden by state and percent of Obama voters in the 2012 election by state, which of the following do you predict we’d see?

[ol]
[li]+.70 or higher Very strong positive relationship [/li][li]+.40 to +.69 Strong positive relationship [/li][li]+.30 to +.39 Moderate positive relationship [/li][li]+.20 to +.29 weak positive relationship [/li][li]+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship [/li][li]-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship [/li][li]-.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship [/li][li]-.30 to -.39 Moderate negative relationship [/li][li]-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship [/li][li]-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship[/li][/ol]

[BrainGlutton]

Remember, Warren Buffett is a taxpayer, sort of.

[eschereal]

@adaher

The divide between Democrats and REpublicans starts around $50,000/yr in income. With the exception of 2008, when Democrats won the rich vote, the last few elections have seen Repiublicans win above $50,000, and lose below $50,000.

That’s right about the level where almost all people pay income taxes. Below that, most people do not.

So yes, the divide is between the taxpayers and the benefit receivers, until Democrats figure out how to win taxpayers, something they haven’t been able to do since LBJ.

No. Just straight up no. The Seattle area, for instance, is predominantly above the median income level and predominantly not Republican. Your premise – that being a responsible, wage-earning tax-payer tends to make a person lean “conservative” holds about as much water as my premise that more complete education tends to make one lean leftward. There are a lot of different factors contributing to ideological identification, as is obvious from this crude comparison which seems to suggest that you have it backwards.

Really, you have to refine your parameters, like, is a D or R a person with strong negative-party loyalty (might vote for someone of some third affiliation, but almost never someone of that other party)? Because the purple middle is expansive, from those who would consider voting against their chosen party to the unaffiliated who lean one way or the other in varying degrees.