Why are we who we are? Liberals and Conservatives and why?

[TexMex]

I ask that you please read my introduction post before passing judgment on me and my question and following statement.

In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions.  This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...

Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal

Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.

CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes.  This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue.  The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.

So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education.  The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money.  I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state.  The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.

So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican? Now that is the general question I am proposing here, but as a secondary question, I ask another question and I will preface it with this:

You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to  go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs.  But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.

Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.

[NHSparky]

Once again, you make generalizations without any solid basis in fact.  I can point out many examples of areas which are urban and conservative (Orange County, CA, for example) and many areas which are "rural" yet very liberal (pretty much the entire state of VT, for example.)

Care to try again?

Oh, and while SOME areas fall under your criteria, the states you cite outside certain areas (NYC, LA, SF) are pretty conservative (again, Orange County, San Diego, and most of upstate NY.)

And no, you can't show a correlation between IQ and politics either.  Nice try, though.

Do come again when you have a point, won't you?

[Kyle Ricky]

I am starting to think that TexMex is doing a thesis on the difference in rural areas and populated areas with abortion rates and political party affiliations.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I got ONE common denominator-education.

Oh ****-nugget,

I will put that to the test any day of the week.

I make my living cleaning-up after people with a decade-plus more education than me.

You also assume all education is good education and that education equates with wisdom.

Ipso facto not so.

I am starting to think that TexMex is doing a thesis on the difference in rural areas and populated areas with abortion rates and political party affiliations.

It's about the 3rd or 4th one of these we've gotten. Its predecessors have actually openly declared they were writing papers for their college knowledge.

Every last one of them trucked in cheap stereotypes.

[Texacon]

I'm starting to wonder why TexMex isn't taught in college the difference between 'There, Their, and They're'.

KC

[Kyle Ricky]

Having a college education doesn't make you smart. I know people with PHD's who can't get jobs, and are dumb as stones, and they will be the first to admit it. Even they say a college degree means hardly anything these days, all it is is a status symbol. Yes, I am going to college also, but I'm not championing about it either. It is a choice that thousands of people make, and is a good choice, but it doesn't make you all holier than though because you are going.

Oh ****-nugget,

I will put that to the test any day of the week.

I make my living cleaning-up after people with a decade-plus more education than me.

You also assume all education is good education and that education equates with wisdom.

Ipso facto not so.

What he is saying is that the denominator he found was income an education. I am guessing that he he making a point that people with less education and higher income abort their kids at different rates and/or chose one or the other political affiliation. For exmple; he could be saying that people with less education abort their kids more and vote conservative, and people with an education and higher income abort their kids less and vote liberal.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Having a college education doesn't make you smart. I know people with PHD's who can't get jobs, and are dumb as stones, and they will be the first to admit it. Even they say a college degree means hardly anything these days, all it is is a status symbol. Yes, I am going to college also, but I'm not championing about it either. It is a choice that thousands of people make, and is a good choice, but it doesn't make you all holier than though because you are going.

What he is saying is that the denominator he found was income an education. I am guessing that he he making a point that people with less education and higher income abort their kids at different rates and/or chose one or the other political affiliation. For exmple; he could be saying that people with less education abort their kids more and vote conservative, and people with an education and higher income abort their kids less and vote liberal.

I count at least 5 errors in your first paragraph, alone; but that's OK...you're in college.      

Anyhoo...

...I was still living in south Florida when hurricane Wilma came through. We were without power for 2 weeks and damage was fairly widespread in Browaed county. The neighborhood I live in was as mixed as they come as far as education, socio-economic status, race, etc. All those little demographic data points liberals like to use to pigeion-hole people.

I knew a lot of yuppies who wouldn't let my bunlets play with their brats. You kind of learn these things when you find out who doesn't come to your kid's birthday party and who doesn't invite you to their's.

meh

Yet, it was interesting how they suddenly became conciliatory towards you because you had the tools to cut-up the tree that had fallen into their kid's bedroom. It was fun watching them succumb to cuts on their hands that us poor, ig'nant types never seemed to suffer. It was truly amazing to watch them become winded within a short time of work as they tried to help their hired help who could work for 8-plus hours straight.

Anytime this little ****-nugget wants to ruck-up and hammer-out 12 miles in 3 hours then teach a class on the ACLS interventions for ventricular tachycardia then write code for the Chief-of-Staff's website then counsel young soldiers without destroying their fragile psyches and then go home and fix the chicken run and replace the brake pads on the Beach Bunny's car, it is welcome to come out and try.

And my life is cush...talk to those who have retired or are higher-up the food chain than me.

[Karin]

My 2 cents:

TexMex, you say that you found two common denominators, income and education.  You say this as if it's a fact; that your thesis has already been proven and needs no more testing.  Isn't this rather simplistic?  

The denominator you're looking for is the level of self-reliance of an individual, or more precisely, how much self-reliance is valued.  It's easy to observe this by contrasting this site with the liberals at DemocraticUnderground, which we do in the DUmpster section.  You see, they believe that the word "bootstraps" is a dirty word.  It makes them downright angry.  Whereas we here, take pride in whatever accomplishments we've made on our own steam.  They get disgusted at people too "proud" to take public assistance; most of us here, if we ever required it in an emergency, quickly got off it ASAP and rarely discuss it.  

In rural areas you will see a high level of self-reliance.  People proud to live off the land, and incidentally, taking very good care of that land.  They are not interested in "social services" as they view that as government meddling, and being a ward/serf of the State.  They want no part of this, regardless of income or education.  

I have never lived in a big city, packed together.  I'm guessing that they have more of a mind-set of relying on a collective body for life-in-general, so they are more receptive to a liberal/left POV.

If you're exploring this in a scholarly/academic way, I would veer away from abortion and gay marriage.  This is a false avenue.  These are "issues," you are searching for the core of one's being.  Which, BTW, makes broad generalizations all that more dangerous.  

[Chris_]

It's about the 3rd or 4th one of these we've gotten. Its predecessors have actually openly declared they were writing papers for their college knowledge.

Every last one of them trucked in cheap stereotypes.

ding, ding, ding.

-1 for the noob.  Again.

[Kyle Ricky]

I count at least 5 errors in your first paragraph, alone; but that's OK...you're in college.    

I never claimed to know everything either. As human we all make mistakes, and are constantly learning.    

You know what they funny thing is? My english professor once said that there two things that college students struggle the most with; they are Grammar and Spelling. With how the public education system is in this country, I tend to agree with him.

[Rebel]

2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.

That is a the biggest bunch of horseshit I've heard from you Progs.

[Ballygrl]

In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions.  This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...

Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal

Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.

CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes.  This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue.  The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.

I'm from a poor neighborhood in Brooklyn, I guess it was and can still be continued to be called "the hood" my Dad and Mom were both extremely poor growing up, my Dad was a Republican, my Mom was a Democrat until about 8 years ago, then she became a Republican, and I was born a Republican.

Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.

1. I'm pro-life, pro-gay marriage and the issues I really care about are financial issues.

2. When it comes to liberals and their money? they're cheap cheap cheap, red states and conservatives are more generous with their money, whereas the left are generous with other peoples money:

Bleeding Heart Tightwads

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3

3. I don't consider myself brainwashed at all, that's an easy out for you to say that because in your mind it shuts down the argument, conservatives make a very good case when it comes to economic issues, the lefts case? you can look at Greece and the rest of Europe.

[Rebel]

This ****ing idiot sucks at pigeonholing. I'm assuming, he being a liberal, he sucks at everything else as well.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This ****ing idiot sucks at pigeonholing. I'm assuming, he being a liberal, he sucks at everything else as well.

I bet he even sucks at Gay Studies.

[CG6468]

I'm starting to wonder why TexMex isn't taught in college the difference between 'There, Their, and They're'.

KC

Studentos are no longer taught any grammar.

[Texacon]

Interestingly while TexMex claims neither side, s/he seems to stick to one theme;

Poor, stupid conservatives

vs.

Rich, educated liberals.

How about talking about the other side of the coin a little bit?  Actually there's probably a dozen sides to this coin;

Rich, educated conservatives
Poor, educated conservatives
Rich, uneducated conservatives
 
vs.

Poor, educated liberals
Poor, uneducated liberals
Rich, uneducated liberals

There's some research for you to start on.  Your stereotypes are hanging out ... you may want to check your zipper because you are exposing yourself.

KC

[Texacon]

Studentos are no longer taught any grammar.

You know, normally I don't pick on grammar and spelling.  I know we all get excited at times and type too fast but anytime someone comes in making the claims this poster is then it seems appropos.

KC

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Interestingly while TexMex claims neither side, s/he seems to stick to one theme;

Poor, stupid conservatives

vs.

Rich, educated liberals.

How about talking about the other side of the coin a little bit?  Actually there's probably a dozen sides to this coin;

Rich, educated conservatives
Poor, educated conservatives
Rich, uneducated conservatives
 
vs.

Poor, educated liberals
Poor, uneducated liberals
Rich, uneducated liberals

There's some research for you to start on.  Your stereotypes are hanging out ... you may want to check your zipper because you are exposing yourself.

KC

Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?

military service = more likely conservative

It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.

[CG6468]

You know, normally I don't pick on grammar and spelling.  I know we all get excited at times and type too fast but anytime someone comes in making the claims this poster is then it seems appropos.

KC

I usually let it slide, too, but people use meaningless threads, unless and until you dissect the bad grammar. Then some of them are still meaningless. I have neither the time nor the inclination to translate peoples' messages.

[jtyangel]

I ask that you please read my introduction post before passing judgment on me and my question and following statement.

In my effort to grasp a better understanding of those in the poles of our political society (far right and far left), I have several questions.  This one in particular pertains to the circumstances that cause a person to be on the left or right. Here we go...

Very Rural=very conservative
Rural=conservative
Suburban=mixed
Urban=liberal
Dense City=very liberal

Ok you say obviously right? My question is WHY. So I started to take it a bit further...What are the major differences between people in cities and people in rural areas? Well I found TWO common denominators: income and education.

CA and NY are two of the most blue states in America. They also have very high average incomes per capita. Alabama and Louisiana have very low incomes.  This is true across the country, in fact there is a DIRECT correlation between a states average salary per worker and whether they are red or blue.  The lower the income, the more red they are, the higher the income, the more blue they are.

So I took it further. What differences are there between low income and high income individuals? I got ONE common denominator-education.  The more educated you are, the more money you make, less educated less money.  I found several studies that showed the average IQ of each state.  The top 15 states in IQ were blue states, and the bottom 15 were red states.

So my question is this, why do people who are more educated and make more money tend to lean democratic and people with low income and education lean republican? Now that is the general question I am proposing here, but as a secondary question, I ask another question and I will preface it with this:

You would think that the more educated richer people would want lower taxes, and not want there earnings to  go to social programs like welfare. You would also think that poorer people in rural areas would like higher taxes on the rich people, and MORE social programs.  But we are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing rich educated people vote for a party that wants to raise there taxes and give away there money to the poor and we are seeing poor people voting for a party that would rather cut social programs spending than raise taxes on the rich.

Why is it that these unalligned interests are present in our society? I believe there are 3 possible answers:
1. Poor Conservatives main issue is not money (taxes and welfare). In fact it is social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
2. Rich educated liberals main issue is not keeping there money and they are more compassionate. It is making sure that the lower class is taken care of even if it means raising there taxes to pay for welfare.
3. Both parties leaders have their followers so thoroughly brainwashed that some conservatives actually believe that we cant tax the job creators without a major meltdown, and some liberals actually believe that welfare is sustainable.

Rubbish..I'm from two very dense population areas and now live more suburban/rural. I started liberal--unfortunately for them, their reasoning didn't make sense to me. I had a problem with the justifying--it did not compute and even as someone in my 20's it sure seemed like the whole premise was based on fallacies in today's world ie rampant racism and disparity in income that was some deliberate work of corporate masters. What really bothered me is that the people who complained the most about unfair circumstances seemed to be their own worst enemies with getting ahead and today's society indulged them in their worst behaviors under some banner of self-esteem.

Also, better education does not equate to being a better critical thinker. That, more then anything, is what I've found sets a conservative and liberal apart when income is equal. Schools don't teach to look at something and really ask questions. They teach to only ask questions IF it is A, B, or C(many times those blanks =A white B male C conservative/Christian). That's NOT criticial thinking; it just isn't. You should have introspection on your own beliefs or slant too, not just th eother guys if you truly think things through in a more logical and critical manner.

I also disagree with you that wealthy liberals 'care' more. I think they really are interested in distancing themselves from the poor masses and welfare is a way for them to push the 'poor' aside without actually getting their own hands dirty with their care(or even facing the realities of their circumstances). I've met very few rich liberals who actually have extended interaction with someone who is 'poor' to judge whether or not that person is a true victim of circumstances or has created their own issues. I can never understand why a liberal, who I assume has made mistakes in their own lives that they account for, doesn't think that someone else may have made bigger mistakes that are hindering them for the future.

The brainwashing thing I agree; that along with lack of critical thinking allows people to latch right on to the gay and racist agenda without even noticing the propensity of some of the more radical groups to be the worst offenders of that which they say they are fighting. A good example of that was the gay man who spoke at the bullying rally and most of those students cheered him when he was sitting there behaving as a bully himself to another group. Pure and simple there is something missing in those kids that they can not see just how hypocritical that man's behavior is. How can you not see that? It's glaring! AGain, lack of critical thinking skills and brainwashing.

Sorry, quick post so sorry it's disjointed.


PS I noticed someone else mentioned it but what of poor liberals? I see many of those in those dense urban areas. I wouldn't call them particularly bright or insightful, but like others have said, your premise is ripe with fallacies and have cherry-picked 'types' to fit how you see things. Like I said earlier, it's very important to invest time in reviewing our own personal bias first before we seek to really dissect the other guy's--just a thought.

[CG6468]

Generalities = facts, jtyangel. Particularly for libs.


Didn't you know that?  off.

[Texacon]

Did you notice there's another stereotype/statistic wholly ignored by it?

military service = more likely conservative

It can't be education because even the infantry in modern times requires strong mental aptitude. And I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few Green Berets (there's a unit here) and I can't think of one who could even remotely be considered liberal; moderate or apolitical maybe, but never liberal. Ditto the combat arms commanders.

You're correct sir!  I actually live in an odd area.  Overall VERY conservative and vote overwhelmingly republican/libertarian in state and national elections.  Locally I end up voting for a lot of democrats.  They tend to be more conservative ... go figure.  In all actuality I think the reason they run democrat is because this used to be a heavily democratic area so a lot of them, while very conservative, simply run on the D ticket.

KC

[jtyangel]

Generalities = facts, jtyangel. Particularly for libs.


Didn't you know that?   off.

Well even in that post, it floors me the inquisitor has not checked him/herself for his/her own bias. That's kinda my point with liberals generally; they don't have any introspection to challenge their own thoughts processes on things. They operate from the premise that they are right from the get go and it would seem to me in the classical liberal sense that runs antithesis to this idea that one has an open mind to begin with if they are that set in their own beliefs. Whose the conservative here and whose the liberal considering?


BTW, I don't hold a conservative to the same standard because most conservatives don't tout how tolerant or open-minded they are. They don't have the same ideals to live up to that the liberal claims.

[CG6468]

Well even in that post, it floors me the inquisitor has not checked him/herself for his/her own bias. That's kinda my point with liberals generally; they don't have any introspection to challenge their own thoughts processes on things. They operate from the premise that they are right from the get go and it would seem to me in the classical liberal sense that runs antithesis to this idea that one has an open mind to begin with if they are that set in their own beliefs. Whose the conservative here and whose the liberal considering?


BTW, I don't hold a conservative to the same standard because most conservatives don't tout how tolerant or open-minded they are. They don't have the same ideals to live up to that the liberal claims.

I agree! It's like military heroes don't tout their brave actions.

[jtyangel]

I agree! It's like military heroes don't tout their brave actions.