Posted on November 9, 2012 by Benjamin David Steele
“If I believed in what you believe, I’d kill myself.”
I recently said that to someone. The person in question is a Republican, but I don’t say it as a Democrat. I’m not a practitioner of partisan bickering and, in fact, I don’t like the entire sham of a two-party system. I also don’t say it lightly or disingenuously. I meant every word of it.
I’ve attempted suicide before and have often contemplated it many times over the years. When I make a statement like the above, I’m deadly serious. Just thinking about the Republican worldview makes me despair to the point of near hopelessness. If I were to believe that worldview to be true, what would be the point of going on?
I’m reminded of James Gilligan’s recent book, Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others. I first learned of it from a book review which offers a great summary (I’ve posted it before, but it’s so important that I’ll post it again):
James Gilligan’s new book, ‘Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others’ (Polity Press, 2011) could be reduced to a few key statements, the main one being ‘Republicans are very bad for your health’. Gilligan, Professor and MD at New York State University, has combed the statistics on violent deaths (homicide and suicide), from 1900 through to 2007 in order to determine political causation.
His findings confirm what many have hitherto instinctively and experientially known: murders and suicides increase under Republican rule. Why? Because they also create inequality and unemployment, both of which produce an employer’s market that keeps wages down. In fact, unemployment figures – in rate and duration – have increased during every Republican administration, and decreased during every Democratic administration. Ironically, despite Republican policies that favour employers and cause greater levels of inequality and unemployment, their policies then inculcate shame amongst the unemployed – blind – or to coin a much-favoured Republican word, ‘evil’ to the fact that they are its main cause. The Republican ideology – hypocritical and misanthropic – fosters the most rancid shame that goes like this: can’t find a job? It’s your own fault. Lost your job? What did you do, must have done something. Not rich. That’ll be your own fault too – or ‘thats God’s plan for you’. Addicted? Can’t hold your damn liquor. Single mum? Slut. Had an abortion? Murderer and slut. Moaning about low pay? You should thank god you’ve got a job. The list goes on. It is a terrible, cruel, vicious circle in which people become imprisoned. In short, Republicans are architects of despair that leads to suicide, and of rage that leads to murder.
My emotional response to the Republican wasn’t just emotional. The facts speak for themselves.
Since reading that review of Gilligan’s book, I’ve bought and read it. I might consider it to be one of the most important books I’ve read in my life, despite it not being great literature. It is a simple and straightforward presentation of facts that can’t be rationalized away. The facts themselves aren’t the product of an ideological agenda for they are government statistics recorded over a 107 year time frame. No Democrat started recording this data with the evil plan of more than a century later showing that Democrats are better. It’s just the typical bureaucratic data gathering.
It really is mind-blowing. I wouldn’t ever have expected to come across data that so starkly puts the two parties in contrast. After the shock wears off, though, all that I feel is sadness. I don’t care about blaming one party and praising the other, but the data is what it is. It’s not even to say everything Republicans do that is wrong. It’s just that there is a vast discrepancy between their ideals and reality. Republicans need to do some deep soul-searching.
I honestly don’t know what to do with data like this. Republicans won’t pay attention to it and most people in general would assume that it’s mere ideological rhetoric fancied up in scientific guise. It’s the type of data our entire society, including both parties, doesn’t know what to do about. You won’t hear any Democrat bring this up in a campaign debate. You won’t come across Gilligan being invited on as a guest on all the major news providers.
In this way, everyone is complicit, especially Democrats. As the author explains (pp. 187-8):
What has made it so difficult or seemingly impossible for the Democrats to free themselves from Republican campaign rhetoric’s reversal of the truth and take credit for their success in ending epidemics of lethal violence in this country for over a century? They, and they alone, have done this. Could this be the downside of being ruled by a guilt ethic and inhibiting their aggression so much that they, the Democrats, often fail to defend themselves strongly enough to undo both the misinformation and the damage caused by their Republican adversaries?
It so often comes to culture from my perspective. Gilligan alludes to this in speaking of a “guilt ethic”. Republicans have their cultural worldview and Democrats have theirs, and the two have become intertwined like a codependant relationship.
But can they be separated? Instead of going back and forth between a Democratic decrease of misery and a Republican increase, couldn’t we have a dynamic that allows for continuous progress? Imagine what kind of wonderful society we might now live in if we had more than a century of continuous decrease of murders, suicides, unemployment and income inequality. Why does that seem so hard to imagine for so many Americans and even for so many partisan Democrats?
To return to the personal, I can’t state more strongly how much I don’t want to live in the Republican worldview of fear and hatred, outrage and despair, self-righteousness and judgment, blame and scapegoating. Yet like so many Americans I feel helpless against the power Republicans have wielded for so long. Nothing ever seems to change.
It’s not about my becoming a loyal Democrat and fighting on the side of good. I just want the misery to stop. I’d like to live in a world of hope. Life is hard enough as it is without creating further unnecessary suffering.
—
There was a line of thought I forgot to follow through on.
I mentioned culture. I was making the connection between an ideological vision and a cultural worldview. What do I mean by that?
The reason I brought up culture was partly just because the quote from Gilligan’s book seemed to allude to it. But I was also thinking of the larger context of my previous writings on ideologies and cultures.
I’m in a conciliatory mood. The campaign season is over. Like most people, I’ve had enough mindless partisan cheerleading for a good long while. Judging others is easy. The hard work comes with trying to compassionately undertand. I feel tired, sad and tired.
However, conciliatory mood aside, I’m not quite ready to roll over and die. This data sticks in my craw. What does it mean? How could this data sit there gathering dust for a century without anyone giving it much notice?
The data apparently didn’t fit the framework of American politics. Or maybe it was ignored because of political correctness. I don’t know. For whatever reason, it had been as if invisible in all mainstream political debate and, as Gilligan’s book has drawn little attention, the data remains invisible for all practical purposes.
Cultural worldviews can become reality tunnels. In this way, people become blind to what otherwise would seem obvious and common sense. This explanation is an important perspective for culture gets past the blame game. Despite how it seems sometime, most people aren’t tying to be willfully ignorant… any more than a bird flying into a window is trying to be willfully ignorant of the window. Likewise, Republicans aren’t trying to create a world of suffering and death.
No one is to blame and everyone is to blame. There isn’t any single thing that is wrong or problematic, no particular belief or value or policy that is in and of itself causing this increase of social dysfunction.
I even feel tempted to say that conservatism shouldn’t necessarily be blamed. Like all humans, there are good and bad conservatives. Like most ideologies, there are good and bad ways conservatism can manifest.
Still, conservatism must be held to account. What I was struck by is that this isn’t just a problem of American conservatives in the Republican Party. Along with the first quote above, I shared in the same earlier post some other research that shows the same correlation with the British conservative party. Of course, we Americans largely inherited our political system from the British and in return our political system has had much influence on the British.
It would be interesting to further test this correlation in other societies. Is the cause of the social problems, is it only particular traditions of conservatism, or is it something else enirely? Ultimately, I don’t know if the exact cause matters.
It’s more important to consider why it continues. Why do Americans vote for a party that leads to the death of other Americans along with leading to other undesirable results? What makes it such a compelling and attractive worldview, despite all the negatives? Why is the connection to the negatives so hard to see or understand?
One could just as easily ask these questions about the Evangelical worldview of apocalyptic End Times. There is something apparently compelling about dark visions. It probably isn’t accidental that the type of person drawn to Evangelicalism is also drawn to the Republican Party.
Posted on August 23, 2012 by Benjamin David Steele
I was discussing economic inequality with a conservative… which, as always, is a masochistic activity.
I’m amazed how easily a conservatives dismiss such things. It isn’t just about the data, about whether correlation is causation. It’s hard enough to even get conservatives to look at the data, and so most debates never even get beyond blind dismissal of what conservatives don’t know and don’t want to know.
I truly do think the data is secondary, although the mountains of correlations do make a damning case. The reason I say the data is secondary is because the data isn’t necessary. The idea that vast economic inequality is bad should be commonsense. Just a brief perusal of countries with similar economic inequalities should make any American a bit on the uncomfortable side.
I know conservatives mistrust science and academia, even though that mistrust is rather selective in application. But when did common sense become the enemy of conservatives?
Maybe that is why the data is so important, after all. The data makes clear what is already obvious enough. Sometimes stating and restating the obvious is the best one can offer in defense of truth and morality.
In that light, I offer a list of books I’ve been perusing recently and also some that I was considering as possible reads. I hope many more people will begin reading books like these and that it will force the discussion into the mainstream, whether or not conservatives like it.
The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America
By Michael J. Thompson
Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others
By James Gilligan
It’s the Middle Class, Stupid!
By James Carville and Stan Greenberg
Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class
By Robert Frank
Class Matters
By The New York Times
Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity
By Michael Marmot
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
By Barbara Ehrenreich
Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
By Barbara Ehrenreich
The Measure of America: American Human Development Report, 2008-2009
By Sarah Burd-Sharps, Kristen Lewis, Eduardo Borges Martins, Amartya Sen, and William H. Draper III
The Measure of America, 2010-2011
By Burd-Sharps Lewis and Sarah Kristen
Inequality Matters: The Growing Economic Divide In America And Its Poisonous Consequences
By James Lardner (Author, Editor), David Smith (Editor), Bill Moyers (Foreword), and Jim Lardner (Author)
The Great Divergence: America’s Growing Inequality and What We Can Do about It
By Timothy Noah
The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future
By Joseph E. Stiglitz
Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up
By Joseph E. Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi
So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America
By Peter Edelman
The Price of Inequality: Facts, Trends, and International Perspectives
By Kemal Dervis, Uri Dadush, Sarah P. P. Milsom, and Bennett Stancil
Winner-Take-All Politics
By Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson
Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches
By Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal
Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics
By Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams
99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do about It
By Chuck Collins
Economic Apartheid In America: A Primer On Economic Inequality & Insecurity
By Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel
The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy
By Key Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady
The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation
By Nancy Burns, Key Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba
Inequality and American Democracy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn
By Lawrence R. Jacobs
Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics
By Rodney E. Hero
Latinos and the U.S. Political System: Two-Tiered Pluralism
By Rodney E. Hero
Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life
By Annette Lareau
The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Divide
By Barbara J. Robles, Betsy Leondar-Wright, Rose M. Brewer, Rebecca Adamson, and Meizhu Lui
With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful
By Glenn Greenwald
The New Jim Crow
By Michelle Alexander
Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II
By Douglas A. Blackman
Wealth and Democracy: How Great Fortunes and Government Created America’s Aristocracy
By Kevin Phillips
Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age
By Larry M. Bartels
Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America
By Martin Gilens
Inequality and Instability: A Study of the World Economy Just Before the Great Crisis
By James K. Galbraith
Inequality, Power, and Development: Issues in Political Sociology
By Jerry Kloby
Inequality Reexamined
By Amartya Kumar Sen
Public Health, Ethics, and Equity
By Sudhir Anand, Fabienne Peter, and Amartya Sen
Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues
ByPaul Farmer
Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor
By Paul Farmer
The Health of Nations: Why Inequality Is Harmful to Your Health
By Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce P. Kennedy
The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better
By Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett
The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier
By Richard G. Wilkinson
Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality
By Branko Milanovic
The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality
By Branko Milanovic
The New Economics of Inequality and Redistribution (Federico Caffè Lectures)
By Samuel Bowles
Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success
By Samuel Bowles
Poverty Traps
By Samuel Bowles
The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality (Oxford Handbooks)
By Wiemer Salverda
I heard something truly disgusting last night. The worst part is that I heard it on NPR.
Several guests were discussing how poverty and the wealth gap have increased and how it has increased the most among minorities. One factor given was that blacks are disproportionately employed in government jobs which have been hit the hardest because of funding cuts. One of the guests had the audacity to portray government jobs as just another welfare for blacks. He was arguing that even blacks who work hard for their money still are just being lazy welfare recipients. WTF! In the eyes of a bigot, minorities can’t win for losing.
He said this on the supposedly ‘liberal’ NPR. Did any of the other guests challenge his racism? No. Did the host demand he explain why he made such a racist comment? No. Apparently, no one on this NPR show thought it was unusual or immoral to express such bigoted views on public radio. I’m sure they were all upper class white people.
It’s a myth that should be put to rest by the economic experience of the African American community over the past 20 years. Because what Kern and other adherents of the “culture of poverty” thesis can’t explain is why blacks’ economic fortunes advanced so dramatically during the 1990s, retreated again during the Bush years and then were completely devastated in the financial crash of 2008.
In order to buy the cultural story, one would have to believe that African Americans adopted a “culture of success” during the Clinton years, mysteriously abandoned it for a “culture of failure” under Bush and finally settled on a “culture of poverty” shortly after Lehman Brothers crashed.
That’s obviously nonsense. It was exogenous economic factors and changes in public policies, not manifestations of “black culture,” that resulted in those widely varied outcomes.
It’s crucial to understand the relationship between wealth accumulated over generations and one’s economic prospects today. Central to that relationship is the concept of “intergenerational assistance.” That’s a fancy way of saying that a person’s chances to advance economically are very much impacted by whether his or her family can help get him or her started on the path to prosperity.
This is an interesting video, but not because I agree with this person’s views, especially not on economics (that is, to the extent I understand economics).
I have a different worldview. I’ve always been a liberal in a general sense. I’ve found insights from many social, religious and political systems of thought (anarchism, socialism and libertarianism; psychology, sociology and anthropology; Christianity, gnosticism and philosophy; Et Cetera), but I’ve never been drawn to identify with any single ideology… which to me seems like liberalism at its best (or, if you’re a conservative who hates relativism, liberalism at its worst).
I’ve never understood the ideological mindset, especially when dogmatic. I respect anyone who with self-awareness and intelligence can change their mind. As such, I have basic respect for how the guy in the video has been willing to change his opinions as discovered new info and new perspectives. Nonetheless, I don’t resonate with the life story he shares. I’ve come across a few people like him who started life off with an ideological version of Christianity and spent many years jumping from ideology to ideology hoping to finally find the one true ideology. It’s odd to me. Such a person sees the problems in the ideology they previously held, but they often don’t see the problem in the ideological mindset itself. This guy, however, does seem to have come to a point in his life where he is beginning to step back from the ideological mindset.
I’ve struggled with trying to understand the attraction to ideology. I’ve written about how ideology is more attractive to those with right-leaning worldviews and mentalities (Liberal Pragmatism, Conservative Dogmatism and The War on Democracy: a personal response). It apparently is rooted in the correlation between conservatism and thick boundary types, along with other psychological traits. An ideology is a thick boundary and becomes ever thicker the more dogmatic it is held.
Jost et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism. The list includes death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism; intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.
As a liberal, I find something inherently repulsive about the ideological mindset. I’m sure this is the reason why liberal atheists and conservative theists are always at each other’s throats. There is just some irreconceivable difference between these worldviews, these attitudinal predispositions.
Looking beyond my own biases, I wonder about the positive results of the ideological mindset. I can see how such a mindset would be beneficial in a traditional society, but there does seem to be benefits in general. From the same above link:
Recent evidence indicates that some existing stereotypes are not supported by the available data. For example,Brooks (2006, 2008) reports that conservative sengage more than liberals in charitable activities and people on the political right are nearly twice as happy as those on the left. The work of Napier and Jost (2008) shows that con-servatives tend to be happier than liberals because of theirtendency tojustify the current state of affairs and because theyare less bothered by inequalities in the society.
It’s kind of humorous. Conservatives are less bothered by inequalities and yet more likely to be involved in charitable activities.
I think some factors are being conflated here. In the US, conservatism correlates with religiosity. Being a part of a well established social institution such as a church makes one more likely to be involved in charitable activities. If this factor were controlled for, the difference might disappear. To clarify this, a study would have to compare church-going conservatives with church-going liberals or compare non-religous conservatives with non-religious liberals.
However, it’s possible that dogmatic people are more attracted to religion. A study would be necessary to compare conservatives and liberals in different countries. In a non-religious country, are non-religious conservatives more likely to be involved in charitable activities?
My other complaint about this kind of data is that liberals give more money and time by way of government and political activism. Unlike conservatives, liberals are bothered by inequalities. Liberals spend more time involved in political activism that the liberals themselves would perceive as charitable. Also, liberals are more likely to work as a public servant for less money than they would in the private sector because they like the idea of personally sacrificing in order to work for the common good. Furthermore, liberal states give more money in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits, whereas the opposite is true for conservative states.
For some reason, social scientists (and pollsters) often seem to use a conservative definition of charity when measuring charitable activities. Still, that doesn’t undermine the charity conservatives do, even if they only do it because their minister told them to or because they’re afraid of going to hell.
- – -
There is one criticism of liberalism in this video which I don’t know if it is generally true but I know is true in my own case. I have an analytical mind & so I’m sure I could learn about the complexities of economics, but I’ve never had much interest in it. As for systems of ideas, philosophy, theology & politics seem more relevant to my own life than economic theories. As for systems of facts, sociology, psychology & anthropology often seem more based in concrete facts than economic theories.
I’m not sure if my liberal mindset has anything to do with my bias against or at least disinterest in economics. I’ve never understood the type of conservative, right-libertarian or anarcho-capitalist who sees all the world through economics. I don’t dismiss economics. It just seems like one small piece in a big puzzle. I wish I knew more about economics in the way I wish I knew more about anything and everything. But I don’t want to see the world through any single lense.
Still, it is a curious observation that liberals might have less interest or understanding of economics. Or. to be more specific, that a conservative would perceive liberals this way. I can’t see any fundamental reason that would make a liberal less capable of understanding economics.
It could be just that the two groups tend to understand economics differently. I think this relates to the ideological differences found in higher education.
Unlike the relationship between area of study and political stance with respect to social issues, a significant effect of area of study code group on self-rating of political stance regarding economic issues was found. Based on the post-hoc comparison, business and economics students were found to be significantly less economically liberal than the students in the biological/related lab sciences, social sciences and fine arts students.
Interesting. Business and economic students tend to be more fiscally conservative. I’d guess that business and economic professors, teacher assistants, and textbook writers also are more fiscally conservative.
Why is this the case?
A possible explanation for this could be that, because business students often encounter more economic problems in their curriculum than those studying other concentrations, their increased knowledge of the effects of economic issues could make them act more conservatively when considering these issues. Another explanation could be explained by the self selection theory; when students enter the university they have their political views and select their major by finding the one whose views most closely matches their own.
Does this mean that economically well informed people are more fiscally conservative for the very reason of their being economically well informed? Or is it just that business and economic departments are dominated by fiscal conservatives? Considering that fiscal conservatives have dominated American society since Reagan, it would seem that the latter possibility is more likely.
This could be tested by finding a school that has fiscally liberal business and economic departments. Assuming such things exist in this post-Reagan era: Would a fiscally liberal curriculum attract fiscal liberals? Or is business and economics inherently attractive to fiscal conservatives no matter what the bias? I could make an argument for the latter.
Conservatism as a psychological trait predisposes one to being more more focused in a thick boundary sense and predisposes one to be attracted to ideology (i.e., systematized ideas and beliefs). Economics is a very theoretical field, more coldly pragmatic. Unlike psychology or physics, economics seems to be less grounded in researched facts because it’s very difficult to study large systems involving so many factors (individual humans, cultures, politics, environment, international influences, etc). An economic theory is more pure, more absolute than a psychological theory. Many conservatives, especially fiscal conservatives, are suspicious of scientific research and most suspicious of social science research. Conservatives are attracted to economic theory for the very reason that it seems above all the messy subjective factors, whereas liberals love all the messy subjective factors.
Contemporary economics, as it is taught and practiced, fits the conservative worldview. But that isn’t to say that is the only or best way economics could be taught and practiced.
Additionally, I see one major problem that no one ever deals with. What gets called fiscal conservatism doesn’t seem very conservative. The meaning of conservative is to conserve, to maintain social order, to uphold institutions of authority, to resist radical change. Accordingly, what Americans call fiscal conservatism seems radically liberal in essence.
Fiscal conservatism in the form of laissez-faire economics is extremely unstable with booms and busts and with a wide variety of deregulation fiascoes.
Fiscal conservatism in the form of supply side economics (trickle down, Reaganomics) has led to increasing poverty and wealth disparity which also creates an unstable society with a lot of social problems.
Fiscal conservatism as a minarchism that sees military as the only role for government has undermined the government’s ability to regulate in order to maintain economic order and has created massive debt with military spending.
If fiscal conservatives are more well informed about economics, why has fiscal conservatism failed so massively at the very time when it’s held the most influence over the entire economic system of the US and of the world? And why do fiscally liberal countries like Germany have such strong economies?
If fiscal conservatives understand economics better, why are most liberal states economically better off than most conservative states? And why do liberals put more priority on balancing the budget deficit than any other demographic, are more willing to raise taxes and cut major expenditures to balance the budget?
One interesting finding of this study was that, for each code group, the mean rating for political stance with respect to economic issues for each group was less liberal than their mean rating of political stance with respect to social issues, with the exception of the fine arts group, whose mean ratings did not differ. This means that, with the exception of the fine arts group, all code groups on average reported that they were less liberal economically than socially. This result is consistent with the findings of Hodgkinson and Innes (2001) in which all participants gave responses that were less pro-environmental when the condition involved an economic/environmental tradeoff. This implies that students in most areas of study become less liberal when an economic policy is in question. A possible explanation for this could be that people feel more directly affected by economic issues than they do by social issues, leading them to be more conservative in their perception because it is more likely to affect them. For example, having a neighbor who loses their job does not directly affect you, because your neighbor not having a job does not change your own circumstance. Yet, if a neighbor’s house is foreclosed on, this directly affects the person because it in turn decreases the value of their house and a person will more likely take greater caution in dealing with this issue than the previous one.
This once again shows the confusion in defining fiscal conservatism (and conservatism in general). What is conservative about helping oneself at the cost of others? What is conservative about destroying (i.e., not conserving) the environment? What is conservative about forcing future generations to deal with problems that we are creating now? What is conservative about putting greed and profit, ambition and hyper-individualism above all other values and issues?
Part of the problem is there are very few people putting economic issues in fiscally liberal terms. And Americans are notoriously uninformed and misinformed about social issues such as related to economic inequality and about scientific issues such as environmental science. Contemporary economics (along with contemporary politics, media, culture, etc) is dominated by a fiscally conservative worldview which has become so ingrained in our society that it seems like commonsense, that it seems like pragmatic ‘reality’.
It’s not surprising that, when presented with an issue in a fiscally conservative framework, many people give fiscally conservative responses. But that probably doesn’t say anything about the merits of fiscal conservatism. Nor does that probably say anything about the economic learnedness of those espousing fiscal conservatism.
To counter the conservative ideology, I’ll end this post with a video series that presents the argument for the fiscally liberal worldview.
Posted on February 28, 2011 by Benjamin David Steele
This video is an explanation of the type of issue I often consider. Listening to it, it got me thinking about why this needs to be explained.
Going by the data I’ve seen, this explanation seems obvious. I honestly can’t see any other convincing explanation. Yes, some rich people are deserving, but many aren’t deserving of being as rich as they are or aren’t any more deserving (in terms of talent, intelligence, ambition, etc) than many less advantaged people.
So, why doesn’t this seem obvious to many conservatives? What keeps them from seeing it? I suspect many refuse to seriously consider the data because it contradicts their beliefs and assumptions. That is understandable. If they get all their news from Fox News, Wall Street Journal, and right-wing talk shows, they probably never (or, at least, very rarely) would even come across any data that contradicts their beliefs and assumptions. That is sad, but understandable.
Still, I doubt that this explains it all. There has to be many conservatives who are familiar with the data and yet still support the rich having advantages. Why?
Is it just team sports mentality, just rich people defending other rich people that they personally identify with as being part of their group? That makes sense psychologically. Poor people do the same thing, although less effectively since they less power.
Another explanation is that some people believe that, despite inequality being morally wrong or less than perfect, is still better than the alternative. Maybe it’s a belief that the egalitarian vision is dangerous. It’s better to have an imperfect system than to risk its destruction by trying to improve it. Certainly, some conservatives do believe this, but I find it a bit too convenient that they many rich conservatives just so happen to support the analysis that benefits them personally.
Yet another explanation is that some people are just cynical. They have theirs. Fuck everyone else. They are on top of the wall and so they kick the ladder away to ensure no one can challenge their position of power. I wonder about this. How many conservatives are this cynical? Or, if not quite this cynical, how many conservatives are to varying degrees motivated by cynicism?
I don’t ask this as a way to dismiss all conservatives and all rich people. I genuinely want to understand what motivates people, want to understand why inequality keeps growing in this country. I can’t believe it’s a mere accidental side effect of an otherwise moral system. There is a class war going on, but I don’t know how many people even see it. For those who don’t see it, what is their incentive in remaining blind to the suffering of others?
Posted on January 25, 2011 by Benjamin David Steele
I love data!
If you want to see a previous state comparison I wrote about, here is the link. The following is the list of states with the least unemployment:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Vermont
Hawaii
Kansas
Wyoming
Minnesota
Iowa
And here is the top 10 most tolerant states according to the data (discussed in the video above and with links below):
Wisconsin
Maryland
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Hawaii
California
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
It’s interesting to compare the two comparisons. Some of the states are found on both Top 10 lists: New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Hawaii. On the other hand, looking at the ranking of all the states, some of the least tolerant states did very well economically (both in terms of low unemployment and low economic disparity): North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming.
I don’t know why that is or what it might mean. The similarities confirm a correlation of data, but differences makes me wonder about what is exactly is being measured in terms of tolerance and intolerance. Social problems, in general, correlate to both poverty and economic disparity. According to other data (from The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett): North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Wyoming have some of the best rankings in the country according to the “Index of health and social problems” (North Dakota is ranked as the fourth best). There must be other confounding factors, but I don’t know what they could be.
The following is the details of the data about the comparison of tolerance across the US:
And now for the breakdown … Wisconsin wins for being the most tolerant. Its religious tolerance was quite good, its gay tolerance leaves room for improvement. Others in the top 10 were Maryland in second, then Illinois, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Hampshire and New Mexico.
And on the flip-side, the 10 least tolerant states are Alabama, finishing 40th in the nation, then it gets worse going to Kentucky, North Dakota, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas and then Wyoming finishes dead last.
This wasn’t included on the list, but interestingly, the 10 most tolerant states all went Democratic in the 2008 election and the 10 least tolerant states are all red states, with the exception of Ohio.
1, Wisconsin Tolerance score: 77 out of 100 Hate crime score: 27 out of 40 Discrimination score: 39 out of 40 Gay rights score: 3 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.0 (10 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 9.2 (5 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 44% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79%
2, Maryland Tolerance score: 75 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 37 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.8 (19 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 7.8 (1 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 51% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 72%
3, Illinois Tolerance score: 74 out of 100 Hate crime score: 30 out of 40 Discrimination score: 31 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.5 (16 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 14.5 (24 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 48% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74%
4, Pennsylvania Tolerance score: 72 out of 100 Hate crime score: 29 out of 40 Discrimination score: 31 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.4 (5 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 11.8 (13 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 51% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 75%
5, Hawaii Tolerance score: 71 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.1 (1 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 20.3 (35 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 54% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 66%
6, California Tolerance score: 70 out of 100 Hate crime score: 30 out of 40 Discrimination score: 29 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.7 (29 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 15.9 (28 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 56% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 67%
7, Minnesota Tolerance score: 70 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 38 out of 40 Gay rights score: 3 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 6.0 (49 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 8.7 (4 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 47% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74%
8, New Jersey Tolerance score: 69 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 35 out of 40 Gay rights score: 8 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 6.3 (50 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.1 (14 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 74%
9, New Hampshire Tolerance score: 68 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 32 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.1 (21 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.3 (16 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79%
10, New Mexico Tolerance score: 67 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 25 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.3 (12 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.2 (15 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 49% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 62%
11, Virginia Tolerance score: 66 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 35 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.9 (20 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 8.5 (2 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 42% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 69%
12, Iowa Tolerance score: 64 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.6 (7 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 37.5 (48 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 44% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73%
13, North Carolina Tolerance score: 63 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 30 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.1 (11 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 11.5 (10 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 36% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 62%
14, Connecticut Tolerance score: 63 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 5.6 (47 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 16.8 (30 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 57% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73%
15, Florida Tolerance score: 61 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.7 (9 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 18.7 (32 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 41% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 72%
16, Louisiana Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 34 out of 40 Discrimination score: 19 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 0.5 (6 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 14.8 (25 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 36% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 70%
17, New York Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 27 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 3.3 (35 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 17.8 (31 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 58% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 77%
18, Massachusetts Tolerance score: 59 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 5.1 (43 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 21.1 (37 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 62% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 79%
19, West Virginia Tolerance score: 58 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 26 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 1.4 (13 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 12.6 (18 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 41% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 70%
20, Nevada Tolerance score: 58 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance Score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents: 2.1 (23 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents: 15.9 (27 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage: 50% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life: 73%
21, Montana Tolerance score: 58 out of 100 Hate crime score: 15 out of 40 Discrimination score: 36 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.9 (30 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 8.7 (3 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 45% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63%
22, Rhode Island Tolerance score: 57 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 5 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.4 (37 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 24.4 (45 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 60% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73%
23, Alaska Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 34 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (31 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 9.3 (6 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 45% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 77%
24, Washington Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 6 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (32 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 20.6 (36 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 54% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 68%
25, Vermont Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 10 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.0 (39 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 21.7 (39 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 59% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79%
26, Oregon Tolerance score: 56 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.5 (45 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.9 (20 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 52% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 70%
27, Maine Tolerance score: 55 out of 100 Hate crime score: 19 out of 40 Discrimination score: 19 out of 40 Gay rights score: 7 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 10 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.8 (38 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 22.5 (40 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 55% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 82%
28, Delaware Tolerance score: 53 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 4 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.2 (40 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 15.8 (26 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 50% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 71%
29, Texas Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 32 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.7 (8 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 18.8 (34 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 35% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 65%
30, Michigan Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 22 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.2 (34 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 21.2 (38 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 46% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 72%
31, Colorado Tolerance score: 52 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 26 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.2 (41 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 10.3 (8 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 52% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 72%
32, Georgia Tolerance score: 50 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.1 (2 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.5 (17 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 34% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63%
33, Indiana Tolerance score: 49 out of 100 Hate crime score: 18 out of 40 Discrimination score: 21 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.5 (14 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 16.4 (29 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73%
34, Tennessee Tolerance score: 49 out of 100 Hate crime score: 21 out of 40 Discrimination score: 23 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (26 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.8 (23 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 31% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63%
35, Oklahoma Tolerance score: 48 out of 100 Hate crime score: 25 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.6 (17 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.8 (22 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 26% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 65%
36, South Carolina Tolerance score: 48 out of 100 Hate crime score: 13 out of 40 Discrimination score: 30 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (27 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 10.6 (9 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 32% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 61%
37, Missouri Tolerance score: 47 out of 100 Hate crime score: 24 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.1 (22 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 29.4 (46 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 73%
38, Mississippi Tolerance score: 46 out of 100 Hate crime score: 27 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.2 (3 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 11.6 (11 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 27% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 59%
39, South Dakota Tolerance score: 46 out of 100 Hate crime score: 10 out of 40 Discrimination score: 28 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.8 (48 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 9.4 (7 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 38% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79%
40, Alabama Tolerance score: 44 out of 100 Hate crime score: 26 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 0.3 (4 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 12.8 (19 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 26% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 59%
41, Kentucky Tolerance score: 43 out of 100 Hate crime score: 14 out of 40 Discrimination score: 24 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 4.7 (42 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 13.4 (21 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 31% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 69%
42, North Dakota Tolerance score: 42 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.3 (25 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 32.8 (47 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 38% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 79%
43, Arizona Tolerance score: 42 out of 100 Hate crime score: 20 out of 40 Discrimination score: 15 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.4 (36 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 18.7 (33 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 48% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 64%
44, Utah Tolerance score: 41 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 24 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 2 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.7 (18 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 11.8 (12 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 22% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 45%
45, Idaho Tolerance score: 41 out of 100 Hate crime score: 22 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 4 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.3 (24 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.9 (42 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 33% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 60%
46, Ohio Tolerance score: 40 out of 100 Hate crime score: 15 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: 1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 3.1 (33 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 24.2 (44 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 45% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 76%
47, Nebraska Tolerance score: 40 out of 100 Hate crime score: 17 out of 40 Discrimination score: 16 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.1 (44 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 38.8 (49 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 35% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 78%
48, Kansas Tolerance score: 38 out of 100 Hate crime score: 12 out of 40 Discrimination score: 18 out of 40 Gay rights score: 0 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 8 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 5.6 (46 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.0 (41 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 71%
49, Arkansas Tolerance score: 37 out of 100 Hate crime score: 15 out of 40 Discrimination score: 17 out of 40 Gay rights score: -1 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 2.7 (28 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 23.9 (43 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 29% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63%
50, Wyoming Tolerance score: 32 out of 100 Hate crime score: 16 out of 40 Discrimination score: 8 out of 40 Gay rights score: 2 out of 10 Religious Tolerance score: 6 out of 10 Hate crime incidents per 100,000 residents:: 1.5 (15 out of 50 states) Discrimination cases filed per 100,000 residents:: 201.9 (50 out of 50 states) Population in support of same-sex marriage:: 37% Population that believes many religions lead to eternal life:: 63%
Posted on January 19, 2011 by Benjamin David Steele
“But I actually want to address his first point because it is so profoundly stupid. Why should we criminalize anything because the criminals are going to ignore the law anyway? Think about that in other contexts. Why should we criminalize murder or rape because people are going to kill and rape anyway? But wait a minute. Then, one of the reasons to criminalize it is so we can prosecute them.”
~ Cenk Uygur
I should preface this entire blog post with the delaration that I, like Cenk Uygur, am a liberal who supports gun rights and yet frames these rights within their corollary of social responsibility. I don’t know that regulation is good, but regulation does seem unavoidable in its necessity… given human nature and the state of modern civilization. Everything in this blog follows from that understanding. My biases are entirely out in the open and they aren’t above being questioned.
(By the way, if you’re interested in seeing the material I posted in direct response to the Tuscon shooting, see my other post here.)
My frustration is that the far right gun advocates want to portray the debate as an issue of banning all guns. They do the same thing with other issues as well: banning all drugs or legalizing all drugs, banning all abortions or legalizing all abortions, et cetera. There is no middle ground in this black and white worldview.
This would appear to be a dishonest debating tactic, but it feels honest to many who see the issue this way. They truly believe in their worldview. As they see it, the gun violence issue isn’t the central issue. They perceive their right to own and carry guns as an inalienable right. Even the most basic regulation ensuring public safety is an infringement and is perceived as an erosion of gun rights that will inevitably lead to banning all guns. If those with a record of crime, violence, or insanity can’t legally buy guns, these people fear that the state will begin to label all gun advocates as violent and insane criminals. They fear the govt, they fear liberals, they fear everything. In a world where everything is a potential threat, they have to be able to defend themselves. Anything outside of their paranoid fantasy is meaningless to them. Yes, this view is only held by far right extremists and that is the problem as these people usually dominate any discussion.
It’s fine that these people have their own worldview. I don’t hold that against them per se. But I do hold it against them that their worldview is forced onto the entire country. These far right gun advocates have immense influence because the NRA and gun corporations have immense amount of wealth and large numbers of lobbyists. They’ve been so effective at controlling the narrative that they’ve even persuaded the moderate majority. If you ask many gun owners, they’ll give you an inconsistent response. Most of them support reasonable regulation, but whenever the gun advocacy narrative is brought up (which is often in the media) they will have a knee-jerk response of saying they’re against ‘regulation’ interpreting it as a codeword for banning guns. This is the power of a narrative. This is also how conservatives have won the health care reform debate. If you ask Americans, most support health care reform (specifically ideas such as public option or single payer). But if you frame the debate with push-polling questions, most Americans say they are against health care reform (against Obamacare, against Government controlled health care, et cetera).
The problem is that minority of far right gun advocates and the majority of average regulation advocates aren’t even talking about the same thing. There is a middle ground that rarely gets discussed and when it gets discssed it is framed as being far left. We can have gun ownership legalized, we can have even have more people owning more guns. None of that contradicts having more effective regulation. I’m fine with someone having a houseful of guns within reasonable limits… just as long as they don’t have a record of crime, violence, and/or insanity… just as long as certain weapons are banned such as machine guns, grenade launchers, bazookas, flame throwers, etc. The thing is that most Americans agree with me, but finding agreement in public debate is so difficult because the rhetoric used to frame the debate just muddies the water, inflames emotions, and polarizes opinions. The results of this rhetoric that we see in the media and in politics doesn’t correspond to what most people think and believe. Research shows that, for example, politicians in Washington are more polarized in their positions than are the American public that they supposedly represent. How can a democracy function when minority groups control all aspects of political debate and policymaking?
The debate isn’t about banning all weapons versus legalizing all weapons. The debate isn’t even about ‘strong’ regulation versus ‘weak’ regulation. Most Americans want to have the right to own guns and to have reasonable regulation to ensure public safety. So, the only worthwhile debate is what kind of regulation is effective. We can have few regulations if those regulations are effective and if they are enforced consistently. On the other hand, having lots of ‘strong’ regulations would be meaningless if they are badly designed and/or aren’t enforced. I’ve presented the real debate here in this post. So, why is this real debate so rarely heard in the media? Or why, when heard in the media, is this real debate so easily derailed by rhetoric? Who benefits by not having a real debate? That is obvious: those who make a lot of money off of guns (meaning the gun makers and sellers including the lobbyists and politicians who work for them).
To be fair, sometimes real debate does happen in the mainstream media and sometimes a rightwing gun advocate will openly speak about regulation:
A further problem is that the complex data on guns is in the context of even more complex data about violence in general. Many people will point out that the rates of violence have been decreasing since the 1980s, but that misses the point that our present ‘low’ rates are still massively higher than the rates of violence in the 1960s. In fact, our present ‘low’ rates of violence are about the same as the high rates of violence during Prohibition.
Also, research shows that the recent decrease of violence is largely caused by factors that have nothing to do with gun regulation or tough-on-crime policies.
These other factors are conveniently ignored or dismissed by gun advocates and other conservatives because it supports a liberal vision of society. Thom Hartmann recently discussed the correlation between violence and income inequality which I’ve discussed in the past.
Various people have tried to resolve this issue over the years, with little success. When the Brady list came out recently, blogger Jay Tea noted that some states with strict gun laws (such as California) actually had higher rates of gun death, while some states with looser laws (such as Utah) had much lower rates. (The “rates” are gun homicides per 100,000 people, and not total deaths. This allows us to compare large states and small states fairly.)
However, Mr. Tea failed to note that the reverse is also true — that there are also states with strict laws that have low rates of gun violence, and states with loose laws that have high rates.
So, which is it: do gun controls make you safer, or put you in more danger?
The author of that blog makes the point that no clear causal relationship can be ascertained proving the benefit of either pro-gun or pro-regulation. However, he was leaving out the data about inequality. Compare (look below) the maps of inequality and poverty to the maps of gun deaths and permits… and notice the fairly consistent georgraphic patterns. Utah has one of the lowest income inequalities in the country and California (like much of the Southern US) has high income inequality. According to The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Pickett, Utah has one of the best ratings in the US in terms of the index of health and social problems (in the Top 10). California is much worse than Utah, but California looks fairly good on many standards when compared to the strongly conservative states in the Southwest and Deep South.
I was initially confused why the above quote mentions California as having higher rates of gun death because one of the maps below shows California gun deaths to be lower per capita. The article that the gun deaths map below comes from explains the differences of data: “The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.” (By the way, data shows a reverse correlation between murder and suicide; in any given society, people will be more likely to either kill themselves or kill others but not usually both in equal rates; so, combining both murder and suicide rates is possibly a more accurate way of making comparisons of overall violence.) The above quote is only referring to the data on homicides (which seems to imply that California has extremely low rates of non-homicidal gun deaths). Anyway, including or excluding California, the pattern still holds with most of the states with a few possible anomalies such as Nevada.
It’s obvious the US has a violent culture when looking at the bigger picture of comparisons between countries, although it’s also clear that certain regions of the US are more violent than others. This violence can’t be directly blamed on guns, but it can’t be denied that our worship of guns (along with general glorification of violence in the media) plays a part. The more violent society gets the more people buy guns. And the more gun laws are loosened the more shooting rampages occur. It’s a vicious cycle that will continue as long as we ignore the fundamental causes. One of these causes is the economic disparity which correlates to an increase of social problems such as violent crime and an increase of social mistrust. Research shows that this type of conflict-ridden atmosphere predisposes people toward more a more conservative and even authoritarian worldview.
So, those in favor of conservative and/or authoritarian policies have an incentive to encourage such social conflict and violence. Those who make money off of the gun industry and the military-industrial comple have a vested interest to encourage this culture of violence. The increasing economic disparity isn’t an accident but is the result of specific political agendas. I’m not saying it’s a conspiracy, but I am saying people tend to act in their own interests. When a minority gains most of the power, they will tend to create a world that conforms to their personal biases.
Here is a further problem. We can only clearly ascertain the correlations between violence and inequality by making comparisons, but I found certain comparisons being dismissed by gun advocates:
Concomitantly, the U.S. should be compared not to Western Europe but to other high-murder-rate nations such as Russia. There, severe and severely-enforced gun bans applied to a largely unarmed population succeeded in virtually eliminating gun murders — so other weapons were substituted. In only four of the 35 years 1965-99 was Russia’s murder rate (barely) lower than ours, while in another 10 the rates were almost identical. But in 21 years the Russian rate was higher, and in seven the Russian rate was more than twice the U.S. Today it is almost four times higher.
When gun control advocates argue for banning or severely restricting gun ownership, the comparisons drawn are usually the United States vs. Britain, Canada, or Japan. The argument presented is that availability of guns causes high crime rates. Occasionally, similar comparisons are made with different American states — though usually such comparisons are made by their opponents, since state by state murder rate comparisons can be used (just as inaccurately) to “prove” that gun control laws increase crime rates.
That comparisons of such widely differing nations, cultures, and legal systems as Japan, Britain, and the United States are absurd should be obvious. But even ignoring these obvious differences, there is plenty of evidence that such comparisons are ignoring significant factors besides firearms availability. As an example, compare American and British rape rates. Unlike murder, rape seldom involves a gun. While 62% of murders in the U.S. in 1981 involved a firearm, only 7% of rapes did so. [1] Therefore, if crime rates in the U.S. and Britain can be fairly compared, we should find that British rape rates were equal to U.S. rape rates, minus the 7% of U.S. rapes committed with guns.
The 1984 British Crime Survey reported 2,288 rapes in England and Wales — an area with a population of 49 million people! This gives 4.67 rapes per 100,000 people. [2] By comparison, America’s rape rate for 1987 was 73 per 100,000 females [3] , or 36.5 per 100,000 people. Subtracting the 7% of U.S. rapes that are committed with firearms gives 34 rapes per 100,000 people — far higher than Britain’s rate. Britain’s very low rape rate must be more than just the absence of firearms — much more.
Similarly, there were 662 murders in England and Wales in 1984 [4] . This gives 1.35 murders per 100,000 people. The U.S. murder rate in 1987 was 8.3 per 100,000 people [5] . Even if we assume that:
1. In the absence of firearms, not a single murderer using a firearm in the U.S. would have used another weapon to commit murder (very unlikely);
2. further assuming that not a single privately owned firearm was used to prevent a murder from happening in the U.S. (very unlikely);
3. assuming that not a single murder in Britain involved a firearm (not true);
subtracting out the 59% of murders committed with firearms in the U.S. in 1987 [6] still gives a rate of 3.4 per 100,000 – - two and a half times higher than Britain. How valid is it to compare British and U.S. murder rates?
We shouldn’t make comparisons with countries that are better than the US based on a wide variety of data because such comparisons would be ‘unfair’. Give me a break! That is the whole point. These countries don’t have the problems the US has and so we should look to why those countries succeed where the US fails. Of course, such data would undermine the rightwing arguments. It’s just ‘unfair’ that reality has a liberal bias.
Another correlation can be made with the military. It’s conservative policies (which are supported by most Republican politicians and many conservative Democrats as well) that have been the major factor behind the rising inequality. And it’s conservative ideology that has always presented the Military-Industrial Complex as a patriotic institution that must be promoted no matter the cost (in lives or taxes). The far left has always been against these things, but you rarely see leftwingers in mainstream media and mainstream politics (a rare exception being Bernie Sanders).
So, besides the problems of inequality, what are some of the other problems of the culture of violence? The most obvious result is the growth of the Military-Industrial Complex, the militarization of the police, a failing War on Drugs, the highest per capita prison population in the world, and the creation of a system of powerful gangs, cartels, and smugglers. Here is an example of how this plays out in the real world:
My complaint of the rightwing vision of society is that it can end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Maybe I’m being unfair to conservatives. However, my criticisms are mostly limited to the far right. My criticisms only seem to apply to all conservatives because the far right has come to dominate and define conservatism. Nonetheless, the data I’ve seen shows that even most NRA members and most gun owners support gun regulation.
The liberal/conservative divide is often a urban/rural divide. This is particularly clear with the gun issue. Research shows that when you have highly concentrated populations violence tends to increase… no matter what laws and regulations are in place. Conservatives will point out that liberal urban areas have high crime rates, but the liberalism doesn’t cause the crime rates. Liberalism and crime rates are both caused (or contributed to) by concentrated populations (or, at least, there is some kind of correlation, causal or not). An example of this is research showing that people who grow up around diverse cultures (i.e., urban areas) tend to be more socially liberal as adults (I’ve seen this research a number of times but I was unable to locate it; I think I might have included it in a previous blog). More importantly, the liberal desire for gun regulation is in response to gun violence and not the cause of it. Highly concentrated populations with high economic disparity will inevitably have high rates of violence. It makes no sense to blame the solution as the cause. Gun regulation is desired when gun violence is out of control. It’s like blaming Progressivism for causing the Robber Barons.
Part of the confusion comes from comparing states without controlling for all variables.
Conservative states tend to be more rural and rural regions tend to have less gun crimes or less reported gun crimes (although it should be pointed out that rural areas have equal rates of gun deaths as urban areas, but they tend to be different kinds of gun deaths: suicides, ‘accidents’, et cetera). Liberal states tend to be more urban and urban areas in general tend to have higher rates of gun violence. So, there is an urban/rural divide when it comes to gun regulation. However, if we just compare urban areas in liberal states to urban areas in conservative states, liberal urban areas (which tend to have comprehensive gun regulation) have lower rates of gun violence. I assume this has to do with liberal urban areas tending to have lower income inequality than conservative rural areas.
A related factor is that rural conservative states with loose gun laws often are the source of illegal or unregulated gun purchases that are behind the large number of unregistered guns in urban liberal states. An example is that many unregistered guns in Chicago come from Indiana.
Gun advocates will sometimes point out that the data is complex. If they can’t prove their own preferred conclusions based on the data, they’ll claim that no conclusions at all can be made. So, they think we should just throw out all the data and go back to first principles (which reminds me of two previous posts: Conservative Mistrust & Ideological Certainty (part 1) and (part 2)). They assume their own ideology is the default position. They argue that the data and analysis is just a distraction from our Second Amendment rights. This simpleminded view misses the point that even the Second Amendment is complex. There is no refuge for the simpleminded. The complex can be denied by embracing ignorance and ideology, but that doesn’t make the complexities go away.
Let’s look at the entire wording of the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first few words clarifies the original intention of the founders. First, they realized it was the role of the government to regulate guns. Second, they supported a militia because they were originally against having a standing army. Combined together, they wanted a “well regulated Militia” meaning they realized having unregulated militias and unregulated gun use was dangerous. The founders did worry about an oppressive government and so so a well regulated militia serving the role of protecting the population from abuse of power, but the founders also worried about populist revolt. They didn’t want what happened to the French to happen to them. They were the business and intellectual elite of their day. If a populist revolt were to happen, they knew they’d be among the first targets of violence. For this reason, they made sure to clarify that regulation was centrally important, i.e., law and order. The founders were far from being radical gun rights advocates.
Obviously, we no longer live in the world the founders lived in. Even the founders had to backtrack on their dislike of a standing army. It was in their lifetime that a standing army was created and has existed ever since. However, if were to go by their original wording and intentions, we should immediately dismantle the entire military and create a “well regulated Militia”. What this would mean is that those who are trained militia members would have the right and responsibility to own a gun and these militias would be under the authority of (i.e., regulated by) the government (both state and federal).
The Second Amendment, however, doesn’t inherently give the right for every person to carry any and all weapons they want without any government regulation.
There is a lot of bogus invocation of the Second Amendment going on right now. But there is no ambiguity in the judicial precedent: the assault-weapons ban does not violate the Second Amendment. When Kim Strassel of The Wall Street Journalcomplains that “New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has piped up, again, in favor of expanding the sort of burdensome restrictions his city places on the Second Amendment to the nation as a whole,” she is using weasel words to invoke the Constitution on a subject with no relevance to it. Even the most conservative jurists held for decades that the Second Amendment was meant to protect state militias rather than an individual right to own weapons. More recently, the Supreme Court overturned total bans on all gun ownership, such as the Washington, D.C., law overturned in Heller v. District of Columbia by a 5-4 decision. But Heller did not establish an individual right to own all weapons. Members of the narrow majority on the Supreme Court who believe that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms would not hold that the Constitution protects one’s right to own a nuclear submarine. So it is not true that any gun ban automatically “burdens” the Second Amendment. The question is whether it affects the limited right to self-defense that the conservative majority now says the Founders intended. Banning any possession of handguns by law-abiding citizens, even in the home, is so far the only law that the high court has held violates the Second Amendment. Such extreme bans are only passed in large liberal cities such as D.C. and Chicago where crime is a persistent concern. No federal law that could ever actually be passed by the U.S. Congress approaches such a level of restriction. There is simply no precedent to support the claim that laws preventing civilians from obtaining weapons that can fire 30 bullets without reloading would violate the Second Amendment. This does not mean that one cannot have a valid concern that even constitutional laws place an undue burden on one’s freedom, but that is a question of values and public-policy tradeoffs, not constitutionality.
I don’t claim to have it all figured out. The more I look at the data the less certain I am. For example, I noticed John Lott coming up a lot in my websearches, especially his book More Guns, Less Violence. Looking at the Wikipedia page, there is tons of research that either supports or challenges his conclusions (although there apparently is more research on the side of challenging).
Trying to make sense of the data is difficult, but I think it’s worth the effort because otherwise we will just be arguing past eachother based on our various biases. I do think we need to take the data, all the data seriously… and not dismiss it because it’s inconvenient or too confusing to fit our preconceived ideologies. But it seems like rational debate is next to impossible. I try to remain intellectually humble and openminded, but I find myself polarized and frustrated by all the rhetoric.
So, I could be wrong about what makes sense to me at the moment. As far as I can tell, gun violence and gun regulation don’t necessarily have a causal connection, although there does seem to be some correlations related to economic disparity (which, in turn, is correlated to the degree of conservatism of a state). I have no absolute conclusions based on such confusing statistics and demographics… and, for that reason, I’m dissatisfied and annoyed by those who are satisfied with absolute conclusions (and absolute ideologies). Regulation might not solve the problem, but at least some basic regulation seems like a necessary ‘evil’ until (if ever) the more fundamental problems in our society are remedied.
Anyway, for the apparent minority of people who care about the complexity of the facts and issues, here are some interesting and helpful links:
Posted on November 26, 2010 by Benjamin David Steele
Here is an awesome discussion about an important topic: public trust.
There is an increase of trust combined with gullibility caused by a fragmentation of trust. People trust others like themselves which is a reaction to modern multiculturalism and conflict of identity groups. Also, mistrust has increased because knowledge has increased. The national media informs people of all the bad things all over the world like never before… which has happened simultaneously as local media reporting on communities has decreased.
Many people (especially the older generations) would like to return to the simplicity and ignorance of the past, but the younger generations are more embracing of a complex world. I’ve seen polls that show younger people are less mistrusting of the media and the government. The younger generations are used to dealing with diverse sources of info and used to determining which info is trustworthy.
One possible solution is finding a new shared culture that will allow for social cohesion that will bridge the diversity between cultures, between communities, between generations. Et Cetera.
There was a central factor not brought up by anyone in this video. High wealth disparity correlates to high rates of social problems (including growing mistrust). Wealth disparity has been increasing in the US for decades and is at a high point not seen for a century. Accordingly, the US rate of social problems has increased above other countries with lower wealth disparity.
I just thought of another possible factor: Mean World Syndrome. One example of this is research showing most people (specifically in crowded cities) will walk past someone who is injured or unconscious. People don’t trust others and they realize others don’t trust them. In such mistrust, it’s a major risk to get involved in someone else’s problems or to take responsibility for public problems.
This relates to something brought up in the above video. One of the panelists said that when everyone is seeking to blame the other side neither side is willing to take responsibility.
One last point. Distinctions should be made. Even though the (possible) loss of trust has impacted everyone, it’s impact has been different in kind and degree for various demographics.
I’ve been trying to figure out how to link to Timothy Noah’s series on inequality, which falls under the rubric of “things you should read that I have nothing to say about.” One thing I can say is that Noah, Catherine Mulbrandon and Slate have put an enormous amount of work into creating visuals to accompany the articles, and the results are really impressive. This graph, for instance, is the best visualization I’ve seen of Larry Bartels’s striking data showing how different income groups do under Republican and Democratic presidents:
First, the deficit has increased with every recent Republican president and decreased with Clinton. Is that an accident that all economic brackets improve under Democrat leadership which is precisely when the deficit has also decreased? I really don’t know what the connection would be, but it definitely undermines the Republican argument that they are the party of ‘fiscal responsibility’ (see: National Debt, Starve the Beast, & Wealth Disparity).
I heard a discussion on the radio the other day. It was about Clinton’s surplus. Gore and Bush had two polar campaign pledges. Gore said he’d put the surplus into a lockbox to save for a rainy day and to put towards social security. Gore’s plan makes sense considering that the surplus was created partly through Clinton’s emphasizing saving over spending. Bush, on the other hand, said he’d give the surplus away with tax cuts. After Bush was elected, 9/11 happened. He could’ve adapted to changing circumstances and saved the surplus, but he didn’t. He created the tax cuts and on top of that he started two wars. That is the complete opposite of ‘fiscal responsibility’. This makes me think of Reagan doing tax cuts while building the military which was the very thing that created our permanent deficit in the first place.
Of course, Bush’s wasting the surplus turned out to be a horrible idea. It would’ve been nice if the surplus had been saved for the rainy day that did come after Bush wasted all the surplus plus some. Yeah, government is the problem… when a Republican is president.
Now, the second piece of data I’m reminded of is related to economic inequality. Of course, as the deficit grew under all these Republicans, the wealth disparity grew which translates into the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer. But that wasn’t directly what I was thinking about. It’s not just that the rich benefit because, according to the data from The Spirit Level (which I mention in my post ‘Capitalist’ US vs ‘Socialist’ Germany), the rich don’t benefit in all ways. Even the rich in a society with high wealth disparity are worse off in terms of social problems.
For example, take obesity which is a major health problem in the modern world and is related to many health problems from diabetes to heart disease. In high wealth disparity societies, there are higher rates of obesity and even the rich are more obese in these societies. One possible explanation is that societies with many social problems create more stress in the lives of people living there. The human body when growing in stressful conditions responds by increasing fat production as a survival measure.
My point is that Americans do better financially under Democratic administrations and I don’t think it’s an accident that Democrats value egalitarianism. I also don’t think it’s an accident that most strongly Republican states have high economic inequality and high rates of social problems… and. when Republicans are in power, Americans overall do worse financially. Correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, but this sure is a whole lot of correlation. If there is another explanation, I’d love to see what it might be.
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Benjamin David Steele
I noticed this video a while back which shows how the economic problems mostly hit the coasts and the south first and then slowly moved to the interior of the country. Some of the midwestern and northwestern were barely impacted at all. I particularly paid attention to how Iowa remained strong as the states to the south, east, and north all descended into economic darkness.
I came across an article that explains some of this.
agriculture or another strong sector such as tourism or industry
highly educated population
Iowa actually has a lower than average rate of higher education, but that is probably because of a split. There is a lot more agriculture in Western Iowa and a lot more education in Eastern Iowa (I read a few years ago that Iowa City has the highest per capita of highly educated in the country). Most importantly, Iowa balances all of this with a very diverse economy.
I had to check one other factor to see if the data holds up. I’ve recently written about income inequality because of reading the book The Spirit Level. As I expected, according to the data in the book, all these states are among the lowest in income inequality (and among the lowest in social problems). This once again proves the theory that income inequality is bad not simply because it leads to social inequality but because it leads to an unstable economy. Wealthy states like Texas and California were hit hard by the recession maybe because they have some of the highest income inequalities in the country.
The moral of the story: Even if you’re a selfish capitalist or a righteous social conservative, you should still help the poor because in helping them you are helping yourself. If you don’t help the poor, you and your entire community will suffer from your sins. So, quit being an asshole and help the poor.
