What's the matter with voting Republican if you're poor?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1874735,00.html

As any neocon will tell you, there is nothing quite so frustrating as trying to liberate people who just do not appreciate the freedom you have in store for them. Nor is there much joy in expressing solidarity with people who want nothing to do with you. The "historic" alliances that have been announced between workers, peasants, students, women and gays would indeed have changed history. Sadly, the vast majority were never truly forged.
Nowhere does this contradiction seem more acute than in the fortunes of the Democratic party, which has stood with the professed aim of representing the economic interests of poorer Americans over the past 40 years.

According to recent US census figures, since President Bush assumed power in 2000 poverty has risen by 7%, the proportion of those without healthcare has risen by 9%, and median household income has fallen by 3%. But where the poor are most numerous, it seems the Democrats are weakest. The 10 states with the lowest household median income, where people are least likely to have healthcare and most likely to live in poverty, all voted Republican in 2004. Not only are they poor, but they're getting poorer. The five states with the steepest falls in income backed Bush.

Indeed, if anything the Democrats' base seems to be among the wealthy. The same census figures showed that seven of the 10 states with the highest median incomes voted Democrat, and citizens who lived in Democrat states were less likely to live in poverty and more likely to have health insurance. And these states are getting wealthier. The five with the sharpest increase in income all voted Democrat in 2004.

Bill Clinton won in 1992 with the dictum "It's the economy, stupid". But what to make of a political culture where poor states elect the party that represents the interests of the rich and vice versa?

and that all that matters is patriotism and morals. They parade issues past them about abortion and gay rights and tell them they don't want to let women "kill" their fetus and they don't none of them there queers living next door. They tell them that Democrats will force them to get abortions and move the gays in next door.
Then comes the patriotism charge, freedom ain't free, gotta fight them over there, 9/11, Iraq and wrap yourself in the flag and spend some of the little you make on a yellow ribbon magnet.

You don't want to voter for them commie librul Democrats, they will take your guns and raise your taxes, even though you are so poor you don't pay taxes, but you might someday, maybe... well maybe not but that is the America fantasy.

These people vote where they vote for any one of the following:

Abortion
Flag
Guns
Homosexuality
Prayer
Taxes
War.

They don't realize that the Republicans are going to cut the funding for any program that might just give them an opportunity to crawl out from under the pile of poverty, they are more worried about if they will be able to carry that gun in the back window of the old pickup truck or say Under God in school.

n/t

And the poor, if they're just barely getting by, love feeling superior to gays, to Muslims, to pro-choicers.

It's unbelievably stupid, but I don't even think another depression would wake these idiots up.

The poor, if they're just barely getting by, love feeling superior to gays, to Muslims, to pro-choicers.

It's unbelievably stupid, but I don't even think another depression would wake these idiots up.

Ah, a classic example of why poor people might not choose to vote for you guys. As the poster below says

"The poor don't like being poor,
but they like being talked down to even less."

Try talking to poor people as equals every once in a while rather then simply stereotyping them out of hand. It might just do you good.

He/she was making an observation in a conversation about them, away from them. That is different. We all do that every day, in various situations. We might see someone, say a coworker, or a clerk in a store, be incompetent and think the shorthand word "stupid", but when addressing them we are more considered, maybe even likely to engage with them in such a way as to influence their behavior to better suit us.

In addition, though I wouldn't have used the words the poster did, I think it's a fair assumption that there is a quality of education issue here, in these poor states as opposed to the wealthier states. You can't deny there is inequality there.

I'm so very sick of all the poor bashing that goes on at DU!!

This would NEVEr be acceptable if it were directed towards any ethnic group!!

Or, heaven forbid, gays.

But poor folk... yup, thems stooopids...

As someone who was recently poor myself, how dare you say I'm poor bashing!

I'm talking about those redneck loons who are hurt by the chimp's policies but vote for him because they love bashing others.

And I think that you're protesting too much. How is YOUR voting record?

but "redneck loons", or whoever you mean. I hope you can see how you confused people by your choice of words in post #3.

If you're so concerned about something so small while you're arguing over semantics and ignoring the big picture, then it's no wonder that Democrats lose elections.

We'll guess your message by telepathy next time. Words just get in the way.

It's so much more fun to take an underrepresented group, and blame them.

thanks--I appreciate your words!

accepted to say about gays, etc.

Generalizations stink, and it's time to recognize that.

As someone who was recently poor myself, how dare you say I'm poor bashing!

You'd never guess from your utter lack of sympathy for other people in that situation.

I'm talking about those redneck loons who are hurt by the chimp's policies but vote for him because they love bashing others.

So you are happy to label the poor as "redneck loons", and then wonder why people are turned off left wingers like yourself. I don't know about the rest of you but if I saw a candidate for office repeatedly accuse poor people of being stupid and "redneck loons" then I for one would not vote for them, and I'm sure most poor people think that way too.

And I think that you're protesting too much. How is YOUR voting record?

Who cares about that? the point here surely is to change the voting habits of people back towards the left. I don't think your obnoxiousness is going to be anything other then counter-productive in this. The left needs to convince the poor that it does actually want to help, and that helping the poor and the needy is actually going to be given priority. Sadly, I don't see helping the poor and the needy being given very much priority at all by the left at present. It's all lifestyle issues, political correctness and sectarian penis-measuring. We really do need to get out of that mindset if we are stop the rot and persuade people that what we want is both the right thing and relevant to them.

If I did, I'd be a repuke.

And I'm not labeling the poor 'redneck loons' - some people ARE 'redneck loons'. Don't you know the difference between a set and a subset? Apparently not.

And don't you dare call me obnoxious.

All that soft-hearted 'oh dear, we really want to help' isn't going to do a damn thing against those people who really DO want to feel superior to others, no matter what their own situation.

After all my donations to charities and causes, after all the years my dh worked for the United Way and other charities, after the years I've poured my heart into buying Christmas presents for kids whose parents can't afford them, you had damn well better apologize for your statements.

How dare you.

Your wrote that "Apparently, everybody needs to feel superior to somebody" and then you have been on a mission to prove this by characterising poor people as "stupid" and "redneck loons". On this thread you have been arrogant, snobbish, and thoroughly obnoxious. You've even flamed Muriel_volestrangler when he was trying to help you! You deserve no apology whatsoever.

If anything you are a prime example of why the left is increasingly unable to reach out to the working classes, because deep down the left is not truly interested in helping the working classes, or anyone else other then themselves for that matter, which is kinda why the likes of me are becoming disenchanted by the left.

It's always something to complain about poor people here.

OFten, it's that they don't vote. Right. Who were those ones again who stood in line for HOURS, just to vote????

Rich Republicans, right????

Give some credit, instead of looking for ways to bash poor folk. It wouldn't fly here to say the same things about gays, but poor folk.... well, anything goes, yeah?

So, why are you asking about my voting record??? Is that the current sly way to get around the rules, and imply that I'm a freeper? Well?

It's a shame that you so strongly identify with an economic descriptor that you feel you are being bashed here on DU. I'm not aware of the bashing, and if you go by income, I'm certainly what you would consider poor. I've struggled financially my whole adult life. But that has more to do with being a single female, in an arts career, being a freelancer. I don't think of myself as poor. I am educated, and I identify with being a Democrat. And that is what the article is about if you took the time to read it, the correlation between education and the tendency to vote Democratic.

I think the original comment that so got your dander up was really a comment about a subset of people who identify with the political party that preaches to their baser instincts—rather than the party which has traditionally lifted up the lower economic classes (think FDR, Social Security, the G.I. Bill after WWII). The comment was a little crude in expressing the thought, but there is a long history in this country of looking down on the newest class of immigrants, and anyone who is different from oneself. It happened to the Irish when they came. Then the Italians. I am familiar with that in my own life.

Confirming that it existed, and continues to exist today (encouraged by the Republican Party), is not "poor-bashing." It is abhorring ignorance.

After all, it's you who wrote this, not bobbolink .

I might point out that the poster wasn't talking directly to poor people.
He/she was making an observation in a conversation about them, away from them. That is different. We all do that every day, in various situations.

You were pretty much defending post#3 on the basis that you think that was in effect talking shit about poor people behind their back. It's you who's making the assumption that people posting on DU are not talking directly to poor people in post#8 and you should not be suprised when people quite rightly take you to task for that. I have every sympathy with bobbolink here. You excuses for left wing poor-bashing are really quite purile.

It's silly to characterize posting in a public forum as somehow talking in secret, and I think you know that. Not to mention that the article you posted was referring to people who vote Republican, and we "talk shit," as you so elegantly put it, about Republicans all the time. I think you know that too.

And what on earth is "quite purile"? Sounds like a description for someone who wants to call a person a name but doesn't quite know how to spell it.

You wrote the following statement

I might point out that the poster wasn't talking directly to poor people.
He/she was making an observation in a conversation about them, away from them. That is different. We all do that every day, in various situations.

I don't feel taken to task by you, and no I'm not stupid enough to think that posting in a public forum is somehow talking in secret. However, you attempted to defend post #3 on that very basis, and now you are trying to weasel out of explaining or defending your idiotic statement.

Now I'll try asking the question again and this time I would like a straight answer. You wrote the above statement in italics. Now how is posting on a public discussion board talking behind people's backs? How is that the case? and if not would you care to retract that statement? and if you do stand by your own post, why do you think that it is justifiable to talk shit about poor people behind their backs?

Straight answers please. I'm sick of your evasions.

see anyone speak out against it.

This wouldn't be tolerated to speak this way of gays or blacks, but it's OK to harm those who are already down.

"try talking to poor people as equals..."

YES! What a concept!

Thanks! :pals:

To me the prime reason why I've been attracted to the left was that the left seemed to be the side more willing to help the poor. My family didn't have much money at all when I was growing up so I do have experience of hard times.

And to that end I do support policies such as Social Security, free education for all, fully nationalized healthcare and so on. However, these issues are increasingly ignored by the left and I have become disillusioned with the left as a result. The left does not consider helping the poor to be a priority these days, which is a good part of why we are in this current mess.

I drive a cab for a living and find that many poor caucasians vote Republican now strictly based on Abortion. I have had many an intense conversation with just plain dumb people who don't get or are so brainwashed by Religion that they don't care about voting against their best interest.
One example is a handicap man who relies on disability who barely gets by. He gets in and starts ranting on about Abortion during the 2000 election, I tried to point out the stupidity of his voting Republican and that they don't help the poor and he spun his Jebus references. Stupid is as Stupid does.

Since I'm poor myself, I take this as a personal insult, and attack.

And, yes, I'm angry.

I've had it with the name-calling of people like me who are on the very edge of survival.

And you make fun of "compassionate conservatism".

Yeah, the compassion just DRIPS from you....

:nuke:

Compassionate conservatism, btw, hurts everybody and hides behind a nice name.

Most democrats are trying their best to help 'people like you'. And if you vote like those idiots who hate gays or fill in the blank, then yes, take it as a personal attack.

I think I had you on ignore, and recently cleared it. Guess what? Buh-bye!!

And anybody who gets their knickers in a twist about it - gee, maybe I hit a sore spot or too, huh?

but they like being talked down to even less.

You're poor? You must have screwed up, so you deserve it.

Pick the wrong parents? Tough shit.

They vote the hot-button topics of gay marriage, gun rights, and abortion. Economics aren't a red-meat issue for them, because they can't be reduced to a black-and-white statement without complexity. (These are some of the same voters with bumper stickers reading: "The Bible says it, I believe it. End of discussion.")

Assuming, of course, that you want to stay that way.

And to make those intentions clear. It is time that the party stood up for the poor again instead of not addressing it out of fear of their corporate sponsors.

they will thank you for your vote by letting you cut ahead in line for the ovens.