Conservatism, Murders & Suicides

Why some politicians are more dangerous
Belinda Webb

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.
 – – –  

More suicides under Conservative rule
BBC News

Suicide rates per million 1901-1998 England and Wales by prime minister

Period Suicide rate Main prime minister in power
1901-1905 101 Balfour (Conservative)
1906-1910 102 Campbell-Bannerman (Liberal)
1911-1915 96 Asquith (Liberal)
1916-1920 85 Lloyd-George (Liberal)
1921-1925 101 Baldwin (Conservative)
1926-1930 123 Baldwin (Conservative)
1931-1935 135 MacDonald (National coalition)
1936-1940 124 Chamberlain (Conservative)
1941-1945 92 Churchill (Conservative)
1946-1950 106 Atlee (Labour)
1951-1955 107 Churchill (Conservative)
1956-1960 116 Eden (Conservative)
1961-1965 137 Macmillan (Conservative)
1966-1970 118 Wilson (Labour)
1971-1975 101 Heath (Conservative)
1976-1980 112 Callaghan (Labour)
1981-1985 121 Thatcher (Conservative)
1986-1990 118 Thatcher (Conservative)
1991-1995 110 Major (Conservative)
1996-1998 103 Blair (Labour)

Click here to return

Maddow on Women’s Healthcare

This analysis makes a lot of sense when compared to other data. In the poorest states (which of course includes the Southern states such as South Carolina), the rich vote Republican and the poor vote Democrat. Rich people in poor states don’t care about the poor. The politicians in these states do whatever they can to disenfranchise the poor and to fear-monger towards the electorate because otherwise they’d never get elected.

Feminomics: Red v. Blue Family Paradigms

Feminomics: Red v. Blue Family Paradigms

“Hidden by the statistics on family instability is a big success story. College-educated women are the only group in the country whose marriage rates have increased, and their divorce rates have fallen back to the levels of the mid-sixties — before no-fault divorce or the widespread availability of the pill. At the same time, the Census Bureau reports that highly educated mothers are more likely to work than are their less-educated counterparts. With stagnating incomes for the working class, this upper quarter of families, concentrated in urban areas and the blue states on the coasts, has increased the advantages their children enjoy. Their secret: invest in women as well as men, empower reproductive choice, support companionate relationships, and reap the benefits of family formation by mature parents with a measure of financial security.”

Demographics: Red States & Blue States

Here is a useful analysis of data:

US 50 States Map

Red States: Beneficiaries of Tax Revenue?
By Peahippo

Of the 31 states that GAIN wealth from the federal government, 25 (81%) voted for Bush. Of the remaining 17 states that LOSE wealth to the federal government, 12 (71%) voted for Kerry.

Of the 31 “gain” states, 25 (a different 81%) are “big gain” states, using the definition of obtaining $1.10 or more back in benefits for each $1.00 paid in taxes. Of those 25, Bush won 21 (84%), and Kerry 4 (16%).

Of the 17 “loss” states, 10 (59%) are “big loss” states, using the definition of obtaining $0.90 or less back in benefits for each $1.00 paid in taxes. Of those 10, Kerry won 9 (90%), and Bush 1 (10%).

One important factor about what these numbers imply is that when a candidate wins the rural vote, he tends to win the less populous states which are still large in area. These states tend to be net importers of government goods and services. One important item in this flow is highway funding. Larger states simply have more area to cross with federally-supported roads. Hence; the rural winner is likely to be backed by “gain” states.

Another important factor is that cities are sources of wealth simply by being hubs of monetary commerce, thus are likely to be the “loss” elements in the entire US government fiscal structure. Hence; the urban winner is likely to be backed by “loss” states.

(This same conclusion is stated in stronger terms at another website:

Here it is shown more clearly:

Balance of Taxes Paid by States vs. Benefits Received from Federal Gvmt.
by “Welfare States” (dollars in millions) for the year 2001

states which
voted for Bush
Taxes sent
to Fed. Govt.
( + vs. – )
+ 10,768
+ 2,485
+ 2,335
– 7,280
– 2,899
– 1,403
+ 1,294
– 2,103
+ 1,303
+ 6,701
+ 7,878
+ 8,929
+ 7,734
+ 2,551
+ 1,054
– 4,383
North Carolina
+ 169
North Dakota
+ 2,881
– 2,786
+ 7,123
South Carolina
+ 5,271
South Dakota
+ 1,802
+ 5,761
– 13,238
+ 781
+ 21,944
West Virginia
+ 5,271
+ 241
Net Welfare RECEIVED :
+ 71,868
Million $$$
by the red conservative states
which voted for Bush
states which
voted for Gore & Kerry
Taxes sent
to Fed. Govt.
( + vs – )
– 58,099
– 11,065
– 1,118
+ 3,282
– 25,166
+ 1,798
+ 1,739
+ 9,187
– 11,591
– 11,701
– 9,135
New Hampshire
– 3,309
New Jersey
– 23,458
New Mexico
+ 8,669
– 39,564
– 1,415
+ 1,828
Rhode Island
+ 468
+ 253
– 9,418
– 5,643
Million $$$
by the blue Liberal states
which voted for Democrat
Al Gore in 2000
( & John Kerry in 2004)

Several things interested me about this data.

The correlation makes a clear point about the political divide.  Why are rich Democrats so willing to give money to poor Republicans even when the latter do nothing but complain about it?  I think poor Republicans should send a thank you note to the rich Democrats.

Along with the correlation shown here, other correlations are equally interesting.  Rich Democratic states have higher education levels, lower economic disparity, lower divorce rates, greater support for civil rights (including gay rights), and on and on.  Our country was primarily founded (i.e., where the Founding Fathers lived and where the first settlements were located) in what are now Democratic states.  The Republican states didn’t even want to be a part of this country and many conservatives are still constantly threatening about secession (as if we would miss their draining away our economic wealth).

Anyways, two other issues seemed to be relevant here.

First, I’ve previously written about the Pew Typology Test and made note about the Disaffected demographic.  Basically, they’re the bigoted and uneducated rural poor, and so I assume they’re most highly concentrated in Republican states (they don’t vote much, but when they do a fairly high percentage of them vote Republican).  I suppose some of them would be attracted to the Tea Party, but they might be too cynical and disenfranchised even to protest.  They’re a very unhappy group that hates or otherwise mistrusts everyone who isn’t like them.

The main thing I wanted to point out is that they’re critical of the government and opposed to any program that helps the poor.  This seems odd since they’re poor with high unemployment rates.  Going by the above data, the Disaffecteds probably rely on government handouts more than most other demographics and the states they live in are entirely dependent on Federal funding.  Maybe they dislike the government for the very reason that they know they’re dependent on the government.  Likewise, maybe they hate liberal elites so much because their very entire lifestyle is dependent on the compassion and generosity of liberal elites.  It’s odd that they often vote Republican if and when they vote.  If Republican policies were actually implemented, the Disaffecteds would end up in even greater poverty.

What is strange is that the Disaffecteds, instead of empathizing, are especially critical of those even more poor than they are.  So, which demographic is even more poor?  According to Pew, it’s the Disadvantaged Democrats which includes high numbers of minorities.  They’re also disenchanted with government, but they believe that the government should help the poor.  It’s strange the different response to government considering that both Disaffecteds and Disadvantaged Democrats rely on government.  The former thinks the government is doing too much and the latter thinks the government isn’t doing enough.  Oddly, the Disaffecteds think that, if you got rid of all immigrants and stopped helping the poor, then all of their problems would be solved.  The Disaffecteds seem to think that the liberal elite are colluding with poor minorities to steal their jobs and control their lives, but it’s the failure of trickle down economics of the Republicans that caused their job loss and poverty (economic disparity has been overall increasing ever since the start of Reagonomics).

This brings me to my second point.  In states with high economic disparity, the poor vote Democrat (i.e., Disadvantaged Democrats) and the rich vote Republican (with the Disaffecteds partly aligning with the rich Republicans).  In states with low economic disparity, the poor and the rich both vote Democrat.  This makes me wonder why Democrats don’t win more often.  I’ve seen various research about how the poor minorities are the most disenfranchised and have low voting rates (partly because the justice system is biased and so more of them end up in prison, and I suppose there are other obstacles such as the lack of transporation).

I’d love to see how population numbers of each group relate to the actual numbes who vote in each group.  Also, I think it would help if I knew which groups tended to vote the same way.  For a quick breakdown, here is the basic population data (from this page):

  • Enterprisers: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
  • Social Conservatives: 11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
  • Pro-government Conservatives: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
  • Upbeats: 11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters
  • Disaffecteds: 9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
  • Liberals: 17% of adult population, 19% of registered voters
  • Conservative Democrats: 14% of adult population, 15% of registered voters
  • Disadvantaged Democrats: 10% of adult population, 10% of registered voters
  • Bystanders: 10% of adult population, 0% of registered voters

These categorizations seem to show that no particular political ideology is more disenfranchised than any other.  The Bystanders demographic is merely the catch-all category for those who either stopped caring or never did care (interestingly are no more prone towards Republican or Democrat), and they apparently they are fairly disenfranchised from organized religion as well (second only to Liberals in their lack of religiosity).

What I do notice is that Liberals are the largest by far of any group in terms of both adult population and registered voters.  The second largest are the Conservative Democrats.  Together, those two groups almost a third of the adult population and more than a third of the registered voters.

Looking at the actual opinions, many of the groups that aren’t specifically liberal support certain liberal policies and values.  Social Conservatives are cynical of business and moderately support environmental protection and other regulation.  Pro-government Conservatives don’t trust the marketplace and so support government regulation and social safety nets.  Upbeats are fairly Republican and yet have positive views of immigrants.  Only Enterprisers and Disaffecteds are apparently conservative on all issues (the odd alliance between rich business owners and the unemployed/underemployed poor which seems to be the bedrock of the conservative movement).  Furthermore, Conservative Democrats represent a large percentage of Democrats and so that disproves the argument that the Democratics are radical socialists/communists (Conservative Democrats identify by far more as Democrats than do Liberals).

It’s hard to know if these 2005 statistics still apply to present demographics, but there is an odd conclusion that can be made.  During the Bush administration, Republicans did seem to represent the largest demographic.  The Republican party has decreased in number, but I’m not sure what that says about the actual beliefs of the public.  More recent data shows the majority of the population leans towards moderate positions on Progressive values.  Even in this 2005 data, many of these Republicans hold values that aren’t what many people think of as conservative.  Americans, including conservatives, aren’t necessarily against big government and many are for government regulation and assistance.  And yet, in past decades, a few social wedge issues have being wielded successfully by the Republican party to sway voters towards the GOP.

Now, I’ll list some of the other specific demographic data:

  • Enterprisers:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 59% have a gun in the home; 53% trade stocks and bonds, and 30% are small business owners ­ all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly; 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings.

  • Social Conservatives:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%).

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 56% have a gun in their home, and 51% attend Bible study groups.

  • Pro-government Conservatives:

WHO THEY ARE: Predominately female (62%) and relatively young; highest percentage of minority members of any Republican-leaning group (10% black, 12% Hispanic). Most (59%) have no more than a high school diploma. Poorer than other Republican groups; nearly half (49%) have household incomes of less than $30,000 (about on par with Disadvantaged Democrats). Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home; 42% live in the South.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Most (52%) attend religious services at least weekly; nearly all describe religion as “very important” in their lives. Gun ownership is lower (36%) than in other GOP groups. Just 14% trade stocks and bonds in the market; 39% say someone in their home has faced unemployment in the past year.

  • Upbeats:

WHO THEY ARE: Relatively young (26% are under 30) and well-educated, Upbeats are among the wealthiest typology groups (39% have household incomes of $75,000 or more). The highest proportion of Catholics (30%) and white mainline Protestants (28%) of all groups, although fewer than half (46%) attend church weekly. Mostly white (87%), suburban, and married, they are evenly split between men and women.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: High rate of stock ownership (42%, 2nd after Enterprisers).

  • Disaffected:

WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Somewhat higher percentages than the national average have a gun in the home, and report that someone in their house has been unemployed in the past year.

  • Liberals:

WHO THEY ARE: Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to have a gun in the home (23%) or attend bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

  • Conservative Democrats:

WHO THEY ARE: Older women and blacks make up a sizeable proportion of this group (27% and 30%, respectively). Somewhat less educated and poorer than the nation overall. Allegiance to the Democratic party is quite strong (51% describe themselves as “strong” Democrats) but fully 85% describe themselves as either conservative or moderate ideologically.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 46% attend church at least once a week, 44% attend Bible study or prayer group meetings, a third (34%) have a gun in their house.

  • Disadvantaged Democrats:

WHO THEY ARE: Low average incomes (32% below $20,000 in household income); most (77%) often can’t make ends meet. Six-in-ten are female. Three-in-ten (32%) are black and 14% are Hispanic. Not very well educated, 67% have at most a high-school degree. Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: Nearly a quarter (23%) report someone in their household is a member of a labor union, and 58% report that they or someone in the home has been unemployed in the past year­ both far larger proportions than in any other group. Only 27% have a gun in the home

  • Bystanders:

WHO THEY ARE: Young (39% are under age 30, average age is 37). Lowest education (24% have not finished high school). Less religious than any group other than Liberals (26% attend church weekly). Largely concentrated in the South and West, relatively few in the East and Midwest. One-in-five are Hispanic.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: About half (49%) say they often can’t make ends meet, fewer than among Pro-Government Conservatives, Disadvantaged Democrats or Disaffecteds; 30% attend bible groups or prayer meetings; 30% own a gun.

This does show some of the demographic dividing lines.  It’s amazing how much the Republican party is dominated by whites.  It’s also quite telling that the groups with the most conservative values are dominated by males.  It’s not exactly surprising.  White males are more highly represented as business owners and in the upper socio-economic classes, and so of course they’ll vote for their own interests.  However, that doesn’t explain why some groups such as the Disaffecteds vote against their own interests.  I thought it funny that Enterprisers (who are the prototypical rich white male conservatives) are the most avid watchers of Fox News (in fact, it’s their primary source of news).

There is so much ideological posturing and the media loves to portray everything in black and white terms.  It’s hard to determine what people actually believe.  It seems to me that liberalism is fairly moderate and mainstream.  Many liberal values and policies are supported by a majority of Americans, and the Democratic party represents the widest range of the American demographic.

If this is so, why do conservatives complain so much about radical liberalism?  Also, the weatlhiest states are Democratic and the most educated people are liberal… so, why doesn’t liberalism have more power than it seems to have?   Why can’t President Obama who campaigned on Progressive ideals, who was voted into office by a majority of voters, and has a majority support in Washington, why, why, why can’t even moderately liberal bills get passed?  Most Americans want health care reform with public option and the President who they voted for wants it (heck, even most doctors want it)… but apparently the minority of conservatives have enough power to block even the most popular of bills.