Zaptruder said:
In the end... it boils down to:
Liberal = long term thinking
Republican = short term thinking
Long term thinking > Short term thinking
This report also falls in line with the other report/study about how aware people voting for Kerry/Bush were aware of the stances their candidate took on things; with the Bush supporters much more likely to get something wrong (in terms of where they believe their candidate stands on an issue).
The irony is that... liberals tend to be the smarter, and thus richer people, but they're trying to help the overall prosperity of the country, while sacrificing their immediate gain. Republicans on the other hand tend to be less well educated as a result poorer, but because of their often unresearched and quite ignorant views, they choose to vote for the side that will continue to polarize the gulf between the have and have nots.
I dunno about all that...
Though I'm not entirely one or the other, and thus (would like to believe that I) have fewer biases, if I
had to classify the parties (which I usually wouldn't, as each party has had moments of myopia as well as prudence), I would classify
liberals as "short term thinkers" and conservatives the opposite (this is referring to their traditional policy stances, NOT the particular conservative currently in office and the particular liberal running against him, in which case it would have to be reversed
). Did liberals 40 years ago
really look ahead to see where pushing a culture of infinite permissiveness, cultural/moral relativism and non-judgmentalism would lead us? No, they didn't-- but there were tons of conservatives who warned them about it. Obviously, conservatives have their own issues (being
too judgmental, for instance)-- all I'm saying is that it's not entirely accurate to suggest that liberals are always "long-term thinkers", when history has shown otherwise.
Also, your point about Republicans being "poorer" is somewhat misleading-- yes, there are segments of the Republican base that are very poor (e.g., so-called "poor white trash", for lack of a better phrase), but there are also sizeable portions of the Democratic base that are poor (namely poor minorities and other urbanites). Thing is, which party those poor white folks by and large tend to support comes down to
cultural factors, not necessarily personal benefit or intellectual assent. Poorer southern whites tend to vote Republican largely due to their religious beliefs, which they feel (rightly or wrongly) the Republican party is more considerate of than the Democrats ("considerate of" may be the wrong phrasing for this situation, but you get the idea
). Thus, those poor whites will vote Republican
despite the fact that the Republican fiscal/social policy will
in no way ever benefit their own impoverished lot in life. It is, as in all other cases, self-interested voting, but the interests being considered are very narrowly defined in this instance.
The same holds true for our urban poor-- nowadays, most are not religious (in the past, blacks were
quite spiritual, which is why I draw this distinction; many still are, but in the inner-cities, an immoral culture of hedonism and materialism has taken root for various reasons; note: I'm not passing judgment-- the reasons these trends have occurred are numerous, and blame lies on all sides); without the "overriding concern" of religious beliefs, they necessarily will vote out of self-interest, which is to be expected. Democrats are (quite properly, for the most part) seen as the champions of the poor due to their support of social programs. Now, some of the extreme Democratic/liberal philosophy actually tends to work
against the interests of these poor folks imo-- namely the implicit abdication of personal responsibility and refusal to set limits/conditions on the use said programs (such as stipulations about drug use/excessive bearing of children while on benefits etc.), but then again, few people think that deeply, or that far in advance, when their own needs are so pressing. This is all understandable and reasonable, considering.
Also, I'd take serious issue with your "liberals tend to be smarter, and thus richer" comment. "Smarter" is something you'll never be able to prove-- you could point to academia, but one could say that the fact that most professors are liberals is as much a result of the prevailing academic culture and indoctrination as it is of their higher average IQ's.
Do I fully believe that? Not necessarily-- I'm just trying to point out that to make such a claim would require you to meet an extraordinary burden of proof; in short, I feel that it is entirely unverifiable one way or the other. If you have reasons to believe otherwise, I'm all ears.
And the "...and hence, richer" comment is a bit off imo. I think you'd find that a
sizeable majority of those earning over $200K in this country are Republicans, obviously due to self-interest (same as everybody else). In fact, I'd say that the only sizeable segment of society earning over $200K who are democrats would be union bigs and attorneys, seeing as how their interests are intimately tied up in the success of the Democratic party, in the same way that corporate fat cats' interests are tied to the success of the Republican party. Of the non-lawyer, non-union people earning over $200K, I'd wager that a majority of them would be Republican, though I'd obviously change that view if presented with evidence to the contrary (these are just my own informal thoughts-- I haven't researched this; it seems only reasonable to assume, however). Self-interest holds sway across all socioeconomic classes and all cultural pockets in terms of who people vote for. I don't agree with such a state of affairs, but this seems to be how it is, unfortunately.
EDIT: Also, to suggest that wealthy Democrats are "sacrificing their immediate gain" for the good of the many is pretty far-fetched. Trial lawyers-- probably the richest segment of the democratic base-- are not
sacrificing their own interests by voting Democratic, they are
furthering them, because they know they have them in their pockets and no legislation detrimental to them will be passed under Democratic watch. Ditto for the big unions. Ditto for corporations and Republicans, obviously.
