3 ms·

America needs to stop with the "land of opportunity" bullshit narrative. It's not the 1920's anymore, not everyone gets to be Elon Musk. We can either be like

America needs to stop with the "land of opportunity" bullshit narrative. It's not the 1920's anymore, not everyone gets to be Elon Musk. We can either be like Germany and tackle these problems together - which will involve massive capital and wealth redistribution. The course we're on - "winner takes all" - is not sustainable - there will be riots on the streets before long. I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model.

CM30 9y ago
> I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model. I don't. In many cases, people aren't voting for a party because they agree with all its policies, but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on. So perhaps one of the GOP's social policies (as much as they're disliked by the left) might just generally be more popular and held as more important than their economics ones. With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing social policies and economics policies, or somewhat more right wing social policies and economics policies, assuming you want to make a difference. If this changed, then I suspect you'd see a very different picture in regards to what politicians are voted for.
- specialist 9y ago
  "...but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on." The book Democracy for Realists calls this "folk theory of democracy". "With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing ... right wing..." You're ignoring the polarizing effect (hyperpartisanship) of gerrymandering.
sageabilly 9y ago
That's simple psychology- take the poor and downtrodden, give them a scapegoat for their problems (liberals), someone to feel morally superior to (everyone but poor, downtrodden GOP voters), and sprinkle the whole thing with Prosperity Gospel Christianity and poof instant voter base.

CM30 9y ago

> I find it ironic how the GOP voters who seem to be disproportionately living in economically distressed areas are the ones most likely to vote for politicians pushing the dog-eat-dog economic model. I don't. In many cases, people aren't voting for a party because they agree with all its policies, but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on. So perhaps one of the GOP's social policies (as much as they're disliked by the left) might just generally be more popular and held as more important than their economics ones. With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing social policies and economics policies, or somewhat more right wing social policies and economics policies, assuming you want to make a difference. If this changed, then I suspect you'd see a very different picture in regards to what politicians are voted for.

specialist 9y ago
"...but because they agree with it on one or two policies they don't want to compromise on." The book Democracy for Realists calls this "folk theory of democracy". "With the US two party system, you can either vote somewhat more left wing ... right wing..." You're ignoring the polarizing effect (hyperpartisanship) of gerrymandering.

sageabilly 9y ago

That's simple psychology- take the poor and downtrodden, give them a scapegoat for their problems (liberals), someone to feel morally superior to (everyone but poor, downtrodden GOP voters), and sprinkle the whole thing with Prosperity Gospel Christianity and poof instant voter base.