Poor yet Conservative: Is it Rational?

[The Parkus Empire]

Do you think it is rational to be both poor and conservative? Or do you think it can only be out of irrational spite for minorities and perverts? Many think the latter, and if so, you are welcome to make your case.

I don't think there is anything irrational about being poor and conservative. I will use California, my home state, as an example. Here in California, the Democratic Party supports a gas tax, which includes a high diesel tax. This tax was ostensibly about transportation costs, including fixing roads (which California has plenty of money to do anyway, our roads are a shame), but now they are put a proposition on the ballot, Proposition 69, which would require the money raised to actually be used on transportation. This is of course nothing but the Democrats spitting in our face. If we vote yes, then that sets a precedence which would allow them to use raised funds in the future for whatever they want, regardless of what they were ostensibly raised for, unless a proposition is passed against each case. And if we vote no, of course that allows them to use the funds for whatever they want anyway. It also obviously hasn't occurred (or perhaps doesn't matter) to the Democrats, that diesel taxes hit the poor the hardest, as they increase the cost of food; this effectively taxes food stamps. Now the Democratic incumbent governor loves these taxes, probably he thinks it will make people carpool more or something, whereas his Republican opponent, mah boi John H. Cox, strongly opposes the gas tax, and has worked very hard to have it repealed. He is also anti-immigrant. Of course, that makes perfect sense: the more immigrants come, the more Democratic voters. Democrats shamelessly say "pro immigrant" in all their campaign commercials here, they want to continue importing more for more votes for their party. Even being pro illegal immigrant helps here, because it increases representation of the state in congress, because illegal immigrants can be given amnesty later, and of course because legal immigrants frequently have illegal immigrant family they don't want deported (California is a "sanctuary state", meaning they openly harbor illegal immigrants and refuse to cooperate with the Federal government regarding immigration policy--Republicans here want to end the "sanctuary state"). This creates a natural antagonism between poor whites and poor Mexicans, because poor Mexicans will generally support the Democrats, regardless of their other policies, out of immigration concerns--not to mention immigrants increase competition among manual labor, something the left refuses to acknowledge. Libertarians here are also feckless, since they are pro open borders, and are too clueless to realize that bringing in more immigrants will continue to give more power to the Democrats; immigrants are not going to vote libertarian.

Mind you, I do support things like universal state provided healthcare. But that's a state matter, not a Federal matter. Claiming you are a friend of the poor for supporting is bs if you are an American and support it on the Federal level. State healthcare is the state's job, not the Federal government's job. There is a division of labor between the two.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Being poor and still thinking Conservatively?

Nothing wrong with that, anyone from any social class can believe any ideology.

[Geneviev]

In regards to the sanctuary state thing, the intent of that law was

It will also prohibit police from turning a crime victim or witness over to federal immigration authorities without a warrant.

Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who authored the measure, says it will help immigrants cooperate with law enforcement.

Source: NBC

Anyways, anyone should be allowed to be conservative regardless of if they are poor or not.

[-Ocelot-]

Being a conservative isn't very rational by itself so anything after that shouldn't be expected to be perfectly rational either.

As for poor conservatives, they do have a tendency to support things that go against their interests all the time and that is valid beyond the US.

[The Parkus Empire]

In regards to the sanctuary state thing, the intent of that law was

It will also prohibit police from turning a crime victim or witness over to federal immigration authorities without a warrant.

Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who authored the measure, says it will help immigrants cooperate with law enforcement.

Source: NBC

Anyways, anyone should be allowed to be conservative regardless of if they are poor or not.

Which is of course absolutely obscene, since warrants typically require witnesses to issue.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I'm fairly certain that this started off as a question I am actually interested in, devolved into a rant about the Democratic Party, and then asked the question again. Not sure what to do with that information, though.
To answer the question part of this, I think it's because a lot of people see very wealthy, very successful, and very conservative people, and associate conservatism with wealth and success, coupled with the fact that it offers easy scapegoats/easy answers for large problems that can't really be adequately answered in a short span of time. Can't find a job? Obviously, the immigrants stole all the jobs! The globe is warming? It's just part of a natural cycle. The economy is sluggish? Blame it on the government/immigrants/etc. All of these issues are WAY too complex to actually answer in the span of a sentence (or, come to think of it, anything smaller than an essay), but that doesn't change the fact that the shorter answer will usually be accepted more.

Bear in mind, this isn't to say that conservatives are stupid. People like easy answers, and if one side can offer easy answers, they will likely get converts. Every widespread social idea I can think of has benefited from this to at least some degree.
In addition, poorer people are less likely to have the time or the education to receive or understand the full thirty minute explanation of complex issues, and are more likely to take the simple, easy one as a result. Again, this isn't because they are stupid. It is because they don't have the spare time to go through the issue in question, and they don't have the education to understand the terminology.

Tl;dr people like easy explanations, conservatism offers easy explanations, and poor people are less likely to benefit from complex explanations.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm fairly certain that this started off as a question I am actually interested in, devolved into a rant about the Democratic Party, and then asked the question again. Not sure what to do with that information, though.
To answer the question part of this, I think it's because a lot of people see very wealthy, very successful, and very conservative people, and associate conservatism with wealth and success, coupled with the fact that it offers easy scapegoats/easy answers for large problems that can't really be adequately answered in a short span of time. Can't find a job? Obviously, the immigrants stole all the jobs! The globe is warming? It's just part of a natural cycle. The economy is sluggish? Blame it on the government/immigrants/etc. All of these issues are WAY too complex to actually answer in the span of a sentence (or, come to think of it, anything smaller than an essay), but that doesn't change the fact that the shorter answer will usually be accepted more.

Bear in mind, this isn't to say that conservatives are stupid. People like easy answers, and if one side can offer easy answers, they will likely get converts. Every widespread social idea I can think of has benefited from this to at least some degree.
In addition, poorer people are less likely to have the time or the education to receive or understand the full thirty minute explanation of complex issues, and are more likely to take the simple, easy one as a result. Again, this isn't because they are stupid. It is because they don't have the spare time to go through the issue in question, and they don't have the education to understand the terminology.

Tl;dr people like easy explanations, conservatism offers easy explanations, and poor people are less likely to benefit from complex explanations.

Liberalism offers easy explanations as well.

[Wanderjar]

I'm fairly certain that this started off as a question I am actually interested in, devolved into a rant about the Democratic Party, and then asked the question again. Not sure what to do with that information, though.
To answer the question part of this, I think it's because a lot of people see very wealthy, very successful, and very conservative people, and associate conservatism with wealth and success, coupled with the fact that it offers easy scapegoats/easy answers for large problems that can't really be adequately answered in a short span of time. Can't find a job? Obviously, the immigrants stole all the jobs! The globe is warming? It's just part of a natural cycle. The economy is sluggish? Blame it on the government/immigrants/etc. All of these issues are WAY too complex to actually answer in the span of a sentence (or, come to think of it, anything smaller than an essay), but that doesn't change the fact that the shorter answer will usually be accepted more.

Bear in mind, this isn't to say that conservatives are stupid. People like easy answers, and if one side can offer easy answers, they will likely get converts. Every widespread social idea I can think of has benefited from this to at least some degree.
In addition, poorer people are less likely to have the time or the education to receive or understand the full thirty minute explanation of complex issues, and are more likely to take the simple, easy one as a result. Again, this isn't because they are stupid. It is because they don't have the spare time to go through the issue in question, and they don't have the education to understand the terminology.

Tl;dr people like easy explanations, conservatism offers easy explanations, and poor people are less likely to benefit from complex explanations.

I'd wager that everything you said is quite literally the inverse. Conservatism requires actual, intellectual thought into problems, liberalism is simply "More money!" "Tax the rich!" etc.

[Hakons]

Being a conservative isn't very rational by itself so anything after that shouldn't be expected to be perfectly rational either.

As for poor conservatives, they do have a tendency to support things that go against their interests all the time and that is valid beyond the US.

Please, conservatism is a perfectly rational political position. You may disagree, but to paint what you disagree with as irrational is terrible form. Also, spare us the terrible patronage your lot gives about people "voting against their own interests." They do no such thing. They simply don't want to vote the way you vote, and from this it's quite easy to see why.

[Valkalan]

To the contrary, it is irrational to be poor and liberal. Think about it. If you're poor, you probably don't have much in the way of connections to help you to get ahead, so you desperately need to learn skills that are valuable in the market. The school system is less than worthless in that regard, otherwise you'd be earning a middle class income straight out of high school. Liberal policies such as regulations, high taxes, and labor controls limit economic growth, and therefore job opportunities. This is especially toxic for unskilled, unconnected poor who need access to such opportunities to develop skills, or to create businesses of their own. Many are seduced by the welfare state, which disincentivizes success for fear of losing access to benefits. And of course, lets no forget that liberal programs are quite costly, and because tax increases are unpopular governments usually rely on debt for their programs. Simple mathematics and historic examples demonstrate that large deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

[Valrifell]

This thread is only going to foster that "Cuckservatives don't know what they're talking about!" "Libtards are stupid!" kind of discussion, isn't it?

Also, OP needs to break that block of text. I can't read it.

[The Parkus Empire]

To the contrary, it is irrational to be poor and liberal. Think about it. If you're poor, you probably don't have much in the way of connections to help you to get ahead, so you desperately need to learn skills that are valuable in the market. The school system is less than worthless in that regard, otherwise you'd be earning a middle class income straight out of high school. Liberal policies such as regulations, high taxes, and labor controls limit economic growth, and therefore job opportunities. This is especially toxic for unskilled, unconnected poor who need access to such opportunities to develop skills, or to create businesses of their own. Many are seduced by the welfare state, which disincentivizes success for fear of losing access to benefits. And of course, lets no forget that liberal programs are quite costly, and because tax increases are unpopular governments usually rely on debt for their programs. Simple mathematics and historic examples demonstrate that large deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

High property taxes also make it illegal for poor people to own or inherit land and homes, and crank up rents which leads to gentrification. Also ludicrously high license costs in my state make it almost impossible to start a business here unless you already have a lot of money, or do it illegally.

[Valrifell]

To the contrary, it is irrational to be poor and liberal. Think about it. If you're poor, you probably don't have much in the way of connections to help you to get ahead, so you desperately need to learn skills that are valuable in the market. The school system is less than worthless in that regard, otherwise you'd be earning a middle class income straight out of high school. Liberal policies such as regulations, high taxes, and labor controls limit economic growth, and therefore job opportunities. This is especially toxic for unskilled, unconnected poor who need access to such opportunities to develop skills, or to create businesses of their own. Many are seduced by the welfare state, which disincentivizes success for fear of losing access to benefits. And of course, lets no forget that liberal programs are quite costly, and because tax increases are unpopular governments usually rely on debt for their programs. Simple mathematics and historic examples demonstrate that large deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

High property taxes also make it illegal for poor people to own or inherit land and homes, and crank up rents which leads to gentrification. Also ludicrously high license costs in my state make it almost impossible to start a business here unless you already have a lot of money, or do it illegally.

It would help if property taxes weren't inexplicably linked with local education budgets.

[Hakons]

To the contrary, it is irrational to be poor and liberal. Think about it. If you're poor, you probably don't have much in the way of connections to help you to get ahead, so you desperately need to learn skills that are valuable in the market. The school system is less than worthless in that regard, otherwise you'd be earning a middle class income straight out of high school. Liberal policies such as regulations, high taxes, and labor controls limit economic growth, and therefore job opportunities. This is especially toxic for unskilled, unconnected poor who need access to such opportunities to develop skills, or to create businesses of their own. Many are seduced by the welfare state, which disincentivizes success for fear of losing access to benefits. And of course, lets no forget that liberal programs are quite costly, and because tax increases are unpopular governments usually rely on debt for their programs. Simple mathematics and historic examples demonstrate that large deficits are unsustainable in the long run.

I still don't think it's fair to say another person's opinion of politics is irrational. Poor people can rationally be liberal. It's rude to point out people and paint their ideology as irrational when one doesn't even know why that person possesses that ideology.

[The Parkus Empire]

High property taxes also make it illegal for poor people to own or inherit land and homes, and crank up rents which leads to gentrification. Also ludicrously high license costs in my state make it almost impossible to start a business here unless you already have a lot of money, or do it illegally.

It would help if property taxes weren't inexplicably linked with local education budgets.

Having stable living conditions is more important than education.

[Conserative Morality]

Please, conservatism is a perfectly rational political position.

In general, perhaps, but American 'conservatism' is little more than identity politics.

[The Parkus Empire]

Please, conservatism is a perfectly rational political position.

In general, perhaps, but American 'conservatism' is little more than identity politics.

All politics is identity politics.

[Valkalan]

It would help if property taxes weren't inexplicably linked with local education budgets.

A simple solution would be to privatize the school system, and shift to online education. An online school could more easily design different curriculum tailored for differing learning styles among children. Due to economies of scale and the lack of a physical facility to maintain, it should be easy to deliver these services at a cost that would likely be lower than property taxes paid to fund public schools. I hope these programs focus on traditional subjects such as math and reading while incorporating practical 21st century skills such as programing.

[Liberis Civitatibus]

I encourage everyone to have an opinion, regardless of what it is. But this is why I believe everyone, particularly the poor in this case, should be conservative.
Let's start with the gas tax. I live in Alberta, Canada, (born in Utah though) which is basically the economic house of Canada, not to be prideful, but it's true. The Conservative party had run Alberta for decades, and Canada for at least one. However, the Conservatives made a mistake. Some of them got corrupt. Soon the NDP ran Alberta, and the Liberals ran Canada (both left-wing). Thankfully, the conservatives have gotten rid of their corruption (at least the noticeable bit). But it was too late. The Conservatives, both provincially and federally, left a rather huge surplus in the budget. In 6 months, the same amount of time Trump put the USA back on their feet again, the surplus turned into the bigges debt growth Canada and Alberta ever had. It started because of the Carbon (which is stupid dor scientific reasons too) Tax. The idea was for the lower classes to grow, while the rich suffered. So, the rich moved away, to avoid taxation. Than, all the poor and middle class people had to pay their Carbon tax. There's also the examples you set out.
Note that everytime taxes were cut in the US, there was an economic jump, mist recently under Trump. I'm not saying cut all taxes, but that they shouldn't be so high.
Also look at the city of Detroit. In its young years, it was completely Republican. It went on to take teh spot of number one car manufacturer in the world. It's economy was booming, and maybe even challenged NYC. In the early 1960s, the first Democrat was elected as mayor of Detroit. Detroit has been Democratic ever since, and oh yeah, it's a cesspool of gang violence now.
Conservatism is good for the poor too (research Reagan (my favourite president and once Californian governor)'s idea of Trickle Down Economcis, which was also behind Trump's tax cut). Since the 1920s, the USA has been almost completely Capitalists, regardless of Democrats or Republicans. Now compare the average poor person today to the average rich person of the 1920s. They both have cars, radios (televisions in the modern case), toasters, microwavea and so on.
Now, left-wing ideologies are more pleasing to the poor. They're get rich schemes. However, they're get rich schemes then burn all of that money. Capitalism takes longer, but also lasts longer, and if protected, hopefully forever.
Telegram me for more references, ideas, and information.

[Hakons]

Please, conservatism is a perfectly rational political position.

In general, perhaps, but American 'conservatism' is little more than identity politics.

And American liberalism isn't? Group identy is tied to all politics, and is certainly a major factor in partisanship, but advocating for one's group isn't inherently irrational.

[Genivaria]

Conservative or Republican?
Because OP seems to be using those interchangeably.

[Geneviev]

I encourage everyone to have an opinion, regardless of what it is. But this is why I believe everyone, particularly the poor in this case, should be conservative.
Let's start with the gas tax. I live in Alberta, Canada, (born in Utah though) which is basically the economic house of Canada, not to be prideful, but it's true. The Conservative party had run Alberta for decades, and Canada for at least one. However, the Conservatives made a mistake. Some of them got corrupt. Soon the NDP ran Alberta, and the Liberals ran Canada (both left-wing). Thankfully, the conservatives have gotten rid of their corruption (at least the noticeable bit). But it was too late. The Conservatives, both provincially and federally, left a rather huge surplus in the budget. In 6 months, the same amount of time Trump put the USA back on their feet again, the surplus turned into the bigges debt growth Canada and Alberta ever had. It started because of the Carbon (which is stupid dor scientific reasons too) Tax. The idea was for the lower classes to grow, while the rich suffered. So, the rich moved away, to avoid taxation. Than, all the poor and middle class people had to pay their Carbon tax. There's also the examples you set out.
Note that everytime taxes were cut in the US, there was an economic jump, mist recently under Trump. I'm not saying cut all taxes, but that they shouldn't be so high.
Also look at the city of Detroit. In its young years, it was completely Republican. It went on to take teh spot of number one car manufacturer in the world. It's economy was booming, and maybe even challenged NYC. In the early 1960s, the first Democrat was elected as mayor of Detroit. Detroit has been Democratic ever since, and oh yeah, it's a cesspool of gang violence now.
Conservatism is good for the poor too (research Reagan (my favourite president and once Californian governor)'s idea of Trickle Down Economcis, which was also behind Trump's tax cut). Since the 1920s, the USA has been almost completely Capitalists, regardless of Democrats or Republicans. Now compare the average poor person today to the average rich person of the 1920s. They both have cars, radios (televisions in the modern case), toasters, microwavea and so on.
Now, left-wing ideologies are more pleasing to the poor. They're get rich schemes. However, they're get rich schemes then burn all of that money. Capitalism takes longer, but also lasts longer, and if protected, hopefully forever.
Telegram me for more references, ideas, and information.

I'm going to need sources.

[Liberis Civitatibus]

In general, perhaps, but American 'conservatism' is little more than identity politics.

All politics is identity politics.

It doesn't have to be, nor should. Look at Ben Shapiro and PragerU for information on this (as my fingers hurt from my last post).

[The Parkus Empire]

Conservative or Republican?
Because OP seems to be using those interchangeably.

Conservatives make up a faction of the GOP, though the GOP is really a coalition of factions. Conservativism in California is represented mainly by the GOP. Although the Independent Party is a conservative party here, it's largely irrelevant to state level politics..

[Conserative Morality]

I still don't think it's fair to say another person's opinion of politics is irrational. Poor people can rationally be liberal. It's rude to point out people and paint their ideology as irrational when one doesn't even know why that person possesses that ideology.

If one's opinion on politics is "The blacks and the Jews are stealing all the jobs and soaking up the welfare" as they collect disability, could their opinion be irrational?