My Tuesday evening deadline has once again killed my ability to specifically discuss the results of the big contests, but I guarantee you one thing: in these parts the overachievers concentrated their votes with conservative candidates and the folks who have largely accepted a permanent place in society’s charity line stuck with the liberals. I predicted such would be the case in an exchange the other day with a caller to my afternoon radio show. I made a definitive statement, fairly straightforward, certainly with little wiggle room for interpretation. The caller asked whether I made the comment to get a laugh from the audience, to light up the phone lines or to outrage the population in general.
Of course I made the statement, because the statement is true.
Here it is: When examining CSRA voter trends there is distinct and direct proof that “left of center” causes and candidates are overwhelmingly supported by voters in poor and depressed neighborhoods. Conversely, “right of center causes” and candidates are overwhelmingly supported by voters in affluent neighborhoods.
That is the statement suitable for textbook publication. Water cooler conversationalists would likely put it this way: In our area, smart achievers vote conservative, poor dullards vote liberal.
The truth, much like my own reflection in the mirror, can hurt, but the truth is the truth.
Now, there are notable exceptions that make the above statement far from being absolute. But we are not talking individual exceptions, we are talking neighborhood and regional trends.
The caller was incredulous, and quite put off that I refused to back down from the assertion. What troubled him more was my challenge. He scoffed my theory, and to show him my faith in the statement, I bet him $5,000 in cash that my statement was provable. He didn’t take the bet.
He then asked me why, in my mind, the trend was true. Very simple answer there: achievers want someone who will look after their interests, underachievers want the same thing.
Conservatives believe achievers should keep as much of their hard-earned money as possible. Many underachievers participate in government benefits (food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) that are funded by the achievers’ dollars. Liberals seek to make access to those benefits as easily and painlessly as possible.
Conservatives want a tough justice system because, often, it is their wealth and safe being that is threatened by the criminal element. Liberals want a forgiving justice system, because so many of their own end up being prosecuted by it.
While it is clear that the local voter trends run just as I describe them, there are pockets of “liberal achievers,” particularly in the West and Northeast, that buck our backyard example.
But take a look at some of those areas: Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C., etc., and you will find confiscatory tax rates and crime problems that are quickly sending those who can afford to move, out of the “city proper.” Down south the trend in the city of Atlanta has gone much the same direction.
The disturbing reality that many conservatives face is that those on the opposite end of the spectrum are beginning to outnumber us. “One man, one vote” means that the Ivy League, magna cum laude alumni and now CEO of a Fortune 500 company has the same weight at the polls as an unemployed crack addict. As many in the aforementioned cities have learned, when the underachievers and their misguided “limousine liberal” buddies learn that they can assemble in numbers strong enough to control the local, state and federal governments, we are all in very deep trouble.
The central controlling document of this nation is the Constitution. Isn’t it interesting that our forefathers, who seemed to be so brilliant in so many other capacities (free speech, separation of church and state, state’s rights, etc.), initially only gave white male property owners the right to vote? While I will be the first to say that being white and male gives absolutely no advantage intellectually (as my wife often reminds me), back in the day when the Constitution was written, property ownership was a fairly decent litmus test of intellectual wherewithal and civic worth.
Stockholders who make the most investment have more say in the way a company is operated. Conversely, those who make little financial contribution have little or nothing to lose if the company falters. Government functions are funded by taxpaying “stockholders,” who invest in the national company via income and property tax payments. Clearly those folks are likely to vote in support of the protection of the systems and individuals that saw them prosper. The converse can be said for the growing number of those whose lack of income and private property ownership essentially gives them a pass on any meaningful tax obligation.
Sucks, doesn’t it?
Why should the people with nothing to lose be in a position to make major decisions for the achievers? In my opinion, they shouldn’t be in that position.
Until the breadwinners in this country take back the government and society in general, we are going to be at the mercy of leaders elected by citizens who can easily be compared to spoiled teenagers driving Daddy’s expensive car. They didn’t pay for it, they don’t have to pay to take care of it and they really don’t care if they drive it straight off a steep cliff a la “Thelma and Louise.”
Buckle up folks, that landing is gonna be Hell.