I've been thinking for some time (like, 20 years really) that this country just keeps moving to more conservative political realms, year to year. The following (longish) article from the Christian Science Monitor delineates this with some data and also some helpings of speculation on the causes. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right Quote of the nut graf(s): Over the past four decades – and more sharply over just the past few years – the geopolitical center of America has shifted rightward. It hasn't happened on all fronts – certainly, there are some areas where the country has clearly moved to the left, such as views on gay rights. But on a host of other issues, from guns to the role of government, the center of debate has edged closer to the conservative position, while activists on the right have moved even further out on the political spectrum. The move has been most pronounced on fiscal matters. In Washington today, when it comes to the size of government, the debate isn't over whether to cut spending, but by how much. It's not over how much to raise taxes to help alleviate a fiscal shortfall, but whether any kind of tax increase – even on the wealthiest few – is valid. I think it's especially weak on the causes part of it, but I think the shift is absolutely undeniable. We are definitely headed to a pre-1930 type of America, even if we don't know why. Of particular interest is the following, from the bottom of page 5 of the article: Tough economic conditions may be another reason many people's attitudes are hardening about government. Studies, including one in 2010 by Peter Enns of Cornell University and Nathan Kelly of the University of Tennessee, found that when income inequality widens, both rich and poor Americans tend to grow more fiscally conservative. So as poor people get more poor, they get more conservative. Happened in the early 20th century as well, until total financial collapse and FDR, etc. This makes absolutely no sense to me and it must make Marxists, in particular, gnash their teeth (or find a new religion.) (edit) IN SUM: I think the shift is pretty much beyond argument. Why is it happening?
Yeah, I thought of that book, and it's interesting that the CSM (usually pretty unbiased, in my view) doesn't even go there. It's considered pretty fringy and nutty these days to talk about the mass effect of the media. I still think the founding fathers would have written up our government differently if they could have forseen 24-hour corporate news replacing citizen-to-citizen conversation. All that said, I think it's too simple to say "oh the stupid populace has been brainwashed by corporate media." Perhaps I should read the book in question though.
To be fair, while some of the effectiveness is caused by stupidity, much of it is also caused by either apathy or lifestyles that simply don't provide the time to stay involved and informed otherwise. Certainly there are other factors too, but I find it difficult to think of another "major" culprit - a good majority of Americans consistently vote against their own best interests (an interesting bit of irony there given the dogma of "free markets"). I should note that it might be more accurate to state that they have lost sight of what truly constitutes their interests, but that too would point to media.
Most people will agree on the following points government budget is too large defense spending is too much medicare and medicaid cannot continue as it is today. SS though is a totally seperate issue.
There is a great cynicism in the country. The children of the post-WWII baby boom are finding it difficult to maintain their standard of living, and their children are finding it equally hard, if not harder, finding jobs difficult to get after doing what they were raised to do, go to college and get a degree, sometimes two or three degrees. They watch the wealthy being rewarded again and again, giving an increasing burden for supporting our social net, one very hard to create and not the equal of the vast majority of developed countries overseas, on the middle class. They're constantly bombarded by the mass media, with its 24 hour news cycle, and much of the information is deliberately distorted. What to believe? Democrats vote for candidates who spin to the right after being elected. The Republicans vote for candidates who say they are for the middle class, and then ardently support the wealthy after being elected. One could go on and on. It's depressing, really.
Yeah, whatever their origins, they are consistently once of the most face-based and least biased newspapers publications in the US (in the current era at least.) Or that's my take.
Would you care to elaborate on this? I have heard arguments that wealthy people benefit more from government spending that poor people (for example, they ship goods on Interstate highways, where the rest of us simply drive on small stretches of them). I have never seen it argued that wealthy people are a greater burden though.
news flash, money is fungible. A wealthy person who uses $10,000 worth of interstate highways to protect their commerce is as much of a "burden" as $10 k of food stamps.
people are poor for a reason hard work and you can make a decent living don't have kids if you can't afford them. not hard. it's no our job to pay for your mistakes.
How do you use $10,000 worth of interstate highways though. Is that cause $10,000 worth of wear and tear on the highways? I don't think even the largest shipping concerns cause more wear and tear on highways than they pay in taxes. Food stamps take tax money from tax payers and give it to poor people. The burden there is easy to calculate (benefits received less taxes paid). Interstate highways take tax money from tax payers and allow anyone to drive on them. I suppose it would be possible to determine how many miles a trucking company puts on the roads, and even where they do so. I don't know if this has been done. Even then though, would all of those miles be allocated to the trucking company, or would some go to the owners of their cargo? Again, I would be very surprised if anyone that pays federal income tax derives more benefit from these common goods than they are paying in to the system. Roads are even one of the easier commons to examine. The military is also said to benefit the rich more than the poor. How does one use $10,000 worth of the military though. Setting that aside, the wealthy would need to have the same net effect as the poor to be as much of a burden. I would like to see anyone make a convincing argument that such is the case.
The wealthy can be more of a burden than the poor because a large amount of the top 1% of net worth individuals very often have accumulated or enriched their fortunes through unscrupulous and destructive financial activities. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html
Whatever your definition of "wealthy" might be, what percentage of the taxes do they pay? And the poor? Since the wealthy are such a burden, should we expel them from this country?
