I think the question of why so many people vote against their own best interests is definitely one worth exploring and arguing about. Are those people convinced that they are economically better off voting the way they do, or do they think cultural conservatism is more important than economic liberalism?
The argument that the GOP has been exploiting cultural conservatism in order to distract the electorate from economic realities is a fairly old one that has found new vigor in recent years. The old "God, guns and gays" joke has a little truth to it, I think. Why do working-class voters vote for economic conservative politicians who act against their own best interests?
Two liberal researchers have looked at the question from opposing vantages and have written on it from an objective perspective -- one who blames "God, guns and gays" and another who doesn't:
Larry Bartels wrote "Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age", the one with the really neat chart on income inequalities under GOP & Dem presidents, and he argues that the working-class doesn't really lean conservative, and that instead, they often don't vote or are outmaneuvered during campaigns. He's convinced Krugman.
Thomas Frank wrote "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and he argues that people are suckers for cultural conservatism. Here's his reply to Larry Bartels.
If what Obama (and Frank) said is in fact true, then it isn't "elitist" to say so. If it isn't, then perhaps it is. Either way, let's assume Obama's an arrogant asshole. This says literally nothing about his ability to run the country, and given the last few years of the "guy you want to have a beer with" and how he's f*#&$d up the country, isn't it worse to have a humble idiot than someone who is arrogant but competent? I'll take an elitist who can solve our problems over a likable idiot any day.
Perhaps the demographics supporting Obama explain his "elitism":
"Obama’s lead over Clinton among white college-educated Democrats (and Democratic leaners) has risen from 7 points to 12 points. Among those with post-graduate degrees, it’s exploded, from an 8 point lead to a 29 point lead. But among white voters with a high school degree or less, his deficit has barely budged, from 33 points to 30 points. As it stands, the educational chasm is stark."Maybe he's giving up on that demographic. I've argued before that I think the Democrats should do so.
I've ripped on the South before, and its well-known issues:
- poverty
- low minimum wage
- poor health care quality (or here)
- poor education quality (esp. here in SC)
- horrid work environments
- obesity (and here)
- religiosity (or here)
- higher STD rates
- highest divorce, teen pregnancy rates (p.10) (or here)
- higher crime
- &c.
- Church attendance and income by state:
- within-state correlations between rich & poor church attendance
- affluent voters seem to be more influenced by religion than the working class
So the take-home lesson purports to show that it's the richer right-leaners who make the difference, and that "working-class" people are not as influenced by cultural conservatism as we have been led to believe ... rather, the more upper-middle classes and affluent classes are those most swayed by cultural conservatism. Also, check out Polarized America (H/T: Paul Krugman) for amazing graphs showing the correlation of income inequality to political polarization.
