Thread: Why is it that in the USA; people with low income are more likely to be right wing?

Where did you get that? Isn't the Republican Party the "party of the rich?"

The average Republican gives more to charity than the average Democrat. Why is that?

https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charit...religion-utah/

Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and Europeans

One Thing Red States Do Better Than Blue States (INFOGRAPHIC)

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

There is pretty much no other country that operates like this; and it just makes no sense?

Can you be a bit more elaborate? Characterising the political culture of a country with this one-dimensional left-wing, right-wing stuff is always difficult.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The average Republican gives more to charity than the average Democrat. Why is that?

Because after you have devastated your state with neo-liberal and/or neo-conservative nonsense, there is simple much more "opportunity" for charity...

Originally Posted by mooseantlers

There is pretty much no other country that operates like this; and it just makes no sense?

To preface my post, I don't vote and I find both the republican party and democrat party different sides of the same coin. Actually, I should say that I very seldom vote, if ever. So...

I don't know why you think this is true, if anything it's the result of people slandering the republican party as heads of corporations and red necks (which if you are a redneck, apparently that means you're poor--or at least have an increased chance of being poor). Do you have any numbers that back your statement up? Do those numbers come from polls? Does the party conducting the study have a way of compensating for how many people didn't vote in the area?

Also, is it supposed to be that those with low income around the world are left wing or something? Or are you asking because typically, that is the case? If it is the case, then are you saying that people with low income should be left wing because they'd receive more government help that way? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm just asking if that's what you mean is all.

Anyway, if you are implying that, and we assume that people with low income actually are more likely to be right wing in America, it's probably because they support the military and live around the people that are receiving government help that don't have any intention of bettering themselves and getting off of government help (and don't like them), and they like being able to legally own guns. Those are the usual reasons.

Originally Posted by Kaitakaro

Because after you have devastated your state with neo-liberal and/or neo-conservative nonsense, there is simple much more "opportunity" for charity...

People can and often do give to national charities. Nobody avoids giving to charity because there "aren't that many" local people in need of charity. People generally give what they think is the right percentage of their income.

In the US, the factor that is the best predictor of liberal/conservative is population density, not income. Densely populated urban areas skew liberal, sparser rural area skew conservative. After population density, we see that ethnicity, age, and religious affiliation are all more strongly correlated than income, or other measures of wealth. In particular, income alone doesn't always capture a person's financial security. You can draw up the stereotype of a gun-toting country bumpkin who is devoted to the GOP. But what about the stereotypical inner-city minority? Or the starving artist? Anyway, those are just stereotypes. So, what I'm driving at is that the premise of the claim isn't very strong.

Why are US political parties different from other countries in many respects? It's mainly to do with game theory. Elections in the US are all of the winner-takes-all variety (except some primaries, but even those eventually feed into the real elections which are winner-takes-all). This type of game quickly reduces to a competition between the two strongest parties. That's why the two parties dominate in the US. With no alternative choices, these parties have become "big tent" parties, meaning that they try to lure as many groups as possible in an opportunistic way. In other words, the two parties aren't narrowly focused on serving particular groups, interests, values, or ideologies. They just want numbers and they get them any way they can. It may seem at this moment or any other moment that the parties stand for something, but history shows that there have been many monumental shifts and flip-flops.

Why are US elections like this? Well, remember that, as odd as it may seem, the United States is one of the oldest governments in continuous operation. Just about every other country has been conquered, revolted, overthrown, or gained independence within the last 50-150 years while Uncle Sam is approaching age 250. Those newer governments have introduced ideas like proportional representation which make third parties more viable. Thus, their political parties tend to better match social groups aligned along their needs and interests.