Political Ideology Based on Resources ?

Interesting take on the issue, and it deserves a better response/discussion than I can provide while sitting in the natatorium and watching my daughters dive practice. I will chime-in late this evening, after I put them to bed.

My first thought is that my Texas seems to be the exception to your thesis. Extensive resources, and we have always been conservative. Even when we had (basically) no GOP presence, we had two distinct wings of the Dem Party, and the conservative wing ALMOST always called the shots. Guys like Price Daniel, John Connally, Dolph Briscoe and Preston Smith would be GOP today. Ann Richards, not so much.

Everywhere I’ve lived, the poor inner city is Democrat dominant, and the rural areas are conservative

I think it’s generational...traditional blue states and voters (not radicals) identified with the traditional liberal thinking of the 60’s and the then very real anti war and human rights struggles. Also, there was a huge union influence as well that had a definite effect.

Southern states have always been anti government. This evolved to a more conservative position - regardless of income - as the left transitioned into a higher taxation, centralized control platform. The shift to the small government Republican happened even while the classic Republican became more of a big business advocate - which doesn’t mesh with the rural south.

The fact is very few voters really understand what their party of chiloice stands for and have mostly chosen sides based on momentum.

That’s my best 5 min take.

quote:

---

Liberals being more caring

---

bullshite. I'd log my volunteer hours with any liberal professional. Virtue signaling is not caring. Our church builds No less than two houses a year for inner city people. You know what all those inner city churches do while we work?

We care. We also want people to care about themselves first.

quote:

---

Our church builds No less than two houses a year for inner city people. You know what all those inner city churches to while we work?

---

I worked on about a half-dozen Habitat houses when I was young and living in Dallas. My experience was that the volunteer workforce was pretty mixed.

Good topic.

Everyone WANTS the same things... meaning peace, no world hunger, comfortable lives, etc.

Where people differ are the means or feasibility of getting to this goal.

It starts with resources. An abundance of resources leads to having less responsibilities for daily living. This is because larger cities have a government department or means to take care of more of people's lives than in the country.

The more distance you put between a person and their own survival, the less aware that person will be as to what actually goes on to ensure their survival.

If everything is done for you already, then you will take these things for granted. At this point the natural urge is back to the basic wants... you want no world hunger, everyone to get along, etc. so you push for this and see no reason the government can't take care of it.

On the opposite end you have a country guy who doesn't have the conveniences of the city such as public transportation to take him everywhere, no abundance of jobs so he has to make sure his pans out, no home repair service, etc.

This guy has a different viewpoint of the world because he sees and lives the steps needed for survival. He knows that you put X work in and Y result comes out of it.

The NYC guy has a different formula, he puts some work in, the city services puts a little in, the public transportation puts a little in, the grocery delivery puts a little in, etc.

So much goes on outside his view that he takes more for granted and assume it just "gets done". So in his mind, why not get it done for more people (welfare, open borders, etc.)

This is also the reason business people like Trump can run the country better than a pure politician that hasn't experienced how an economy or business works.

To the politician things just get done, they never have to fully understand the nuisances of what happens to produce a result.

This can be a huge discussion, but for timesake I'm going to stop here.

I think it's a mistake to try to categorize states by ideological preference. Probably more revealing to look at city vs rural (and consider suburbs/exurbs). And then just take that kind of breakdown to each state where you consider how concentrated its population is in its major metro areas. Wouldn't be perfect (e.g. TX is overall conservative despite multiple big cities) but I bet it'd give a better starting point for making sense and thinking about outliers.

I do appreciate your attempt to have a discussion for the record. Just wish you didn't start with the feelings bullshite.

The northeast and west coast used to be staunchly republican while the south was democrat.

I think areas go through a cycle of economic idealogy. Poor undeveloped areas vote for blue collar leftist policy (such as unions) because it promises support. As development occurs, it becomes more conservative. Once it becomes developed and wealthy, it goes to leftist again...not for economic policy but for social policy as people tend to concentrate on things that don't matter when they're comfortable. In typical progressive form along with terrible economic policy this leads to a collapse and social unrest and eventually a swing back to the right, but a more authoritarian right wing as people seek law and order.

quote:

---

trying to understand why northeastern states and Cali are solid blue and generally considered economically prosperous.

---

1. they are considered economically prosperous because they are.

gross product of CA is bigger than nearly all countries on earth.
lots of wealthy people. software. hardware. entertainment. food.

2. why they be blue?
The people who first got to the gold rush came from New England.
They arrived on ships.
language patterns and values of new england came to SF.

3. why are new englanders blue? not always been the case.
lots of senators and gov GOP.
NY Rockefeller
Mass Romney
some of the most conservative, from New York and New England.

You need to look at each issue.

anti slavery, sure.
anti war. some of that too.

4. all hail St Ronnie of Reagan. GOP gov CA and Potus.

5. Nasty Nixon. GOP. gov CA and POTUS