Why there are Always More Conservatives than Liberals?

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people feel entitled to refuse to learn in school, develop a skillset and live off their income without help.

They then bring children into the world they can't support and expect others to work hard and support them in a manner they have grown accustomed to.

Tell me who is the greedy one, a person who wants something for nothing or a person who wants to keep what they have earned?

Saying Conservatives are uncaring is just untrue. We donate to charity far more often than Liberals do.

Liberals want others to give to the less fortunate and do not lead by example.

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites of all. Always focusing on what others have and trying to take it away.

People will say they can't afford to give to charity. I cry B.S.

They could give of their time

Meh, I've been screwed over by conservatives who think they shouldn't have to pay for the arts....and it's because my work doesn't praise Jesus. They get a show, my time, my effort, my expertise, but they "don't agree" with my ideology, so they got something for nothing.

I think people are people. Rich and poor alike. Christian and non-Christian. People really do what they can to get a free lunch. Especially from people they see as not part of their "tribe."

 

[work in progress]

Very nice post, and spot on.

Thanks! Although I have never considered myself a liberal, it has always grated against me that liberal was turned into a swear word in American politics, while conservative has never met much of any serious scrutiny.

A lot of the reason I think this happened is because liberals have a conscience and have empathy, and when they are faced with disagreement and opposition, they try to understand the other person's pov. This is never the case with doctrinaire conservatives! They already have the truth, and are going about the business of enforcing the truth in society. Unlike liberals, they are not averse to criticism, and only take notice of their critics when their objectives have become so unpopular that they are at risk of failure.

After Bush II, I've come to believe that most conservatives could care less about any criticism if they believed they had a lock on the institutions of power in society: the courts and the political system. But, very few liberals and other non-conservatives have been willing to consider that conservatism was never created with good intentions in the first place, and even those liberals who suspect or see sinister motives behind the primary movement that works for the benefit of maintaining the rich and powerful, are not willing to say so publicly!

 

[work in progress]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people feel entitled to refuse to learn in school, develop a skillset and live off their income without help.

And you will never stop wrapping your head around it until you give up on the notion of libertarian or contra-causal free will! Without the jargon, all this means is that we are physical creatures living in a physical world, so ALL of our behaviors and choices are determined by the genetic programming we were born with, plus...and even more importantly...how those genes are influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, right from gestation through childhood and on into adulthood! When you accept that we are physically caused creatures, you also have to accept that our relative success/or failure is actually very limited and constrained by our physical makeup, the total environment we grew up in, and the stress levels we have to endure as adults. I know of a few people who were working and seemed to be getting along okay and then everything just shut down for them....they were unable to get up and go to work, or do much of anything. It's not that they want to be like this, it's just that for whatever reasons, they started developing chronic depression and were unable to function normally...and sometimes taking a pill for it doesn't work either!

But, the general prescription by the right wing is sink or swim! That would only make any sense at all if you believed in libertarian free will and that people are 100% in complete control of their fate as an individual. Maybe that's what you believe, but it is not what I believe, and I'll leave it at that!

If you ever have to move out of the suburbs, back to one of those old city neighborhoods that contain the miscreants you and so many others like to complain or carp about, you will find that many...if not most of the people who are doing little or nothing with their lives are not happy with their station in life or their lack of accomplishment...especially in the kind of hyper-capitalist world we live in today, where everyone's status and sense of self-worth is determined by materialistic measures: how much they earn, where they live, how much their house is worth, what kind of car they drive, and as we start seeing retirement closing in on us...what sort of materialistic success our children have...that we can brag about to our friends! Stop and think about it for a second...this is 90% of the talk and social interactions these days. People are more materialistic than they were a generation ago; and at least back then, there was a reasonable chance that the majority of people could improve their material prosperity...today, this is the realm of conservative and libertarian fantasyland.

And when it comes to your question about "refusing to learn in school," I was one of them! The big difference 40 years ago and today, was that back then, if you were either incapable or unwilling to sit in class and produce high grades, you still had the option to make a decent living for yourself if you had the ability to work with your hands. Today, this is not the case, as outsourcing and union-busting have driven all blue collar wages..including skilled trades...downward, and unable to keep up with rising inflation.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Quick question: why is it assumed that conservatives want a smaller government? It seems to me that conservatives want just as big a government as liberals, just aiming it in a different direction.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Quick question: why is it assumed that conservatives want a smaller government? It seems to me that conservatives want just as big a government as liberals, just aiming it in a different direction.

Propaganda - my quick answer.

It appeals to the Main Street, Anytown, U.S.A. folks who see the government taking their taxes and giving it to the poor, which to them means folks who don't work for a living, while turning a blind eye to things like gentrification. Folks who see government as an overbearing big brother who want to take away their freedoms but turn a blind eye to reproductive freedoms.

Basically, "smaller government" to them merely means government that stays out the way of Christian Conservatives that want to convert everybody and turn this country into a theocracy...a Euro-centric, female-submissive, gay-closeted, anti-arts, anti-science, Bible-only utopia. If government supports that particular agenda....well then it's a sound government. Screw feminists and gay rights activists that say to a big government to stay the hell out of our bedrooms and uteruses.

I have my criticisms of Democratic hegemony, too, but today I'm more critical of conservatives....the Jerry Falwell-Glenn Beck-hyper-Christian-Conservative, that is. In time, I'll return to criticizing the anti-business, anti-homeschooling, and anti-gun political platforms of the Left (that also likes to throw gays and transgendered under the bus), though.

 

[Father Heathen]

Right now there are two schools of thought, government is the solution to our problems or government is standing in the way of progress.

These two opposing views cannot compromise.

Most Conservatives are happy with their lives while most liberals are discontent.

My biggest issues are most Liberals are generous with other folks money.

Most change requires sacrifice. Liberals do not want to sacrifice anything to get something else.

Not only is this a useless oversimplified generalization, it also ignores issues outside economics, such as those regarding education, science, environment, justice, rights, freedom, and equality.

 

[Magic Man]

Couple of very quick thoughts in relation to this...

1) This kinda supposes that there isn't a drift towards conservatism as one gets older. I'm not convinced on that, either way.

2) Conservative is a subjective statement. I'm kinda guessing the percentage of people who are 'conservative' might stay roughly the same, but ideas on what a conservative is will change.

Exactly. Opposing interracial marriage used to be conservative, while supporting it was liberal. Now it's just standard to support it. And there certainly is a drift towards conservatism with age.

 

[Magic Man]

Quick question: why is it assumed that conservatives want a smaller government? It seems to me that conservatives want just as big a government as liberals, just aiming it in a different direction.

It's assumed that conservatives say they want smaller government, but you're right that what they really mean is they want government used for different things, not necessarily smaller.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people feel entitled to refuse to learn in school, develop a skillset and live off their income without help.

They then bring children into the world they can't support and expect others to work hard and support them in a manner they have grown accustomed to.

Tell me who is the greedy one, a person who wants something for nothing or a person who wants to keep what they have earned?

I'm still trying to wrap me head around why intelligent people still buy exaggerations/strawmen like this.

Saying Conservatives are uncaring is just untrue. We donate to charity far more often than Liberals do.

The first part is untrue, although the second part is debatable. The problem is that that caring doesn't translate into supporting policies that would actually help people. The prevailing conservative ideas on policy are uncaring, even if the individuals who buy into them do care on a personal level.

Liberals want others to give to the less fortunate and do not lead by example.

The prevailing liberal ideas support policies that help the less fortunate, and they support these ideas in voting and in other ways. That's how they lead by example. They also try to help people on a personal level as much as any other group. The difference is they realize helping on a personal level is like using a bucket to bail water from a sinking ship. The way to really help is to change the system that creates the high levels of poverty.

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites of all. Always focusing on what others have and trying to take it away.

People will say they can't afford to give to charity. I cry B.S.

They could give of their time

I'm assuming you have some kind of evidence for these claims. I mean, you wouldn't just make wild accusations about a whole group of people with nothing to back them up, right?

 

[work in progress]

Conservatives aren't as presented here. They want to pay taxes for useful things like roads, regulation (which does good, not waste money or oppress us), a practical safety net, & defense just as you do. What they (& I) don't want to pay for is foreign adventurism (over $1,000,000,000,000 in 2 continual feckless wars), over-regulation, a welfare state, politicians jet setting around the world on our dime, etc. There's a big difference between the desired level of spending between lefties & righties, but not that big a difference on the goals.

Well, actually most conservatives over the years shifted their opinions on military spending and the pitfalls of foreign entanglements years ago. Just like they mostly did an about-face on globalization during the same time period, because conservativism's prime objective is to maintain hierarchies of status in society - or protect the aristocrats...or whoever the monied interests are in society. The difference with conservatism of the time of Edmund Burke and the 20th century, was that his conservatives were the land-owning aristocracy, who didn't always have much in common with the rising centers of economic power in banking and commerce. But in our time, it's whoever has the most money who is the focus of attention and the object of veneration by the acolytes of conservatism.

So, in our time, when the business class saw that there would be huge profits to be made by shifting production out of the country and importing finished goods, it only made sense that they would see the advantages of crippling the power of trade unions and importing cheaper finished products as hugely beneficial both financially and to exercise control over the lower classes. So, they abandoned their support for tariffs and import duties. And in Burke's time, conservatives were isolationists who saw less benefit through trade, and huge downsides as the rising class of industrialists polluted their land and threatened their wealth and prestige.

Same goes for military adventurism. Once conservatives realized the financial advantages of economic colonization through use/or threat of use of military forces, then they were on board with spreading democracy throughout the world. And since some of the major players of the game are the corporations who benefit directly by making and selling weapons of war to the Government, that is another major incentive for the policy now dubbed Neoconservatism.

Today there are no equivalents of the aristocrats here, and just the ceremonial anachronism of a monarchy in England; so the oligarchs today are like wealthy players who buy their way to the head table of a poker game. If they lose, their out of the game, and new player takes their spot. But, even as the players change, and even their stated political objectives change, the strategies do not. It is, and always will be about entrenching and protecting the interests of small wealthy and powerful ruling classes!

Your beef might be with us Libertarians, who are more extreme. Anyway, I was comparing tax rates (income, property & other....local & national) with Wirey, the flatulent Canuckistanian. Our total rates were about equal, but he gets free health care, less abusive cops, & more entertaining mayors (at least in Toronto).

Unlike conservatives, libertarians do have doctrines to follow. Of course what happens is that most self-proclaimed libertarians...even the most orthodox like Ron Paul, make a few shifts if they desire political office. Certainly Rand Paul is much more opportunistic and adheres less to libertarian principles than his father...since he sees himself as having a legitimate shot at being president. But, even Ron did an about-face on many social policies - especially abortion, when it became obvious to all Republicans in the 80's that they would have to deal away abortion rights to have a hold on the increasingly important religious right vote.

When it comes to taxes, taxes are higher in most of Canada than anywhere in the U.S., but the benefits are that our cities have so far managed to avoid the ghettoization that affects most U.S. major cities. I don't know how long this will be the case, since our provincial government stopped supporting public housing, and if rent controls are also abandoned, we could see the ghettos and gentrification that is affecting New York, San Francisco and many other cities.

On health care - our system isn't perfect, and the shear dynamics of an aging and less than healthy population, along with a medical system that is enamored with high tech expensive machines and expensive drugs to keep costs rising, are making our health system more and more expensive as the years go by. It may still be about half the cost of the average in the U.S., but it is rising, and it is not free! About 20 years ago, our provincial health insurance system in Ontario was shifted from direct premiums to payroll taxes, which have hidden much of the increase in costs. And even that has not been enough to keep up with rising costs and reduced federal transfers, so we got a high income earners surtax added on, which does not affect the very wealthy (because of caps) as much as those of us at the upper levels of the middle class.

Public health insurance is still better and far less costly than private-for profit health insurance, and also better than that middling compromise your president hatched...likely to win support of the insurance, drug and private hospital industries, but it would be far better to have a system that re-focuses attention on health and disease prevention/rather than curing and fixing problems after they become acute medical conditions. The bulk of our aging population's health issues are related to lifestyle: too much stress, too little exercise, too much food and unhealthy food etc.. Our bodies have disease prevention systems to fix many, if not most of these problems before they become medical issues in the first place. Preventing disease will do a lot more to ease the burdens of an aging population in greater need of medical services, if we could do more than make health and disease prevention more than buzzwords, and make them part of real policy.

 

[metis]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around why people feel entitled to refuse to learn in school, develop a skillset and live off their income without help.

They then bring children into the world they can't support and expect others to work hard and support them in a manner they have grown accustomed to.

Tell me who is the greedy one, a person who wants something for nothing or a person who wants to keep what they have earned?

Saying Conservatives are uncaring is just untrue. We donate to charity far more often than Liberals do.

Liberals want others to give to the less fortunate and do not lead by example.

Liberals are the biggest hypocrites of all. Always focusing on what others have and trying to take it away.

People will say they can't afford to give to charity. I cry B.S.

They could give of their time

Wow, a whole flock of stereotypes. Good job.

 

[Father Heathen]

Wow, a whole flock of stereotypes. Good job.

He has mastered the straw man hit 'n run.

 

[Mister Emu]

A lot of the reason I think this happened is because liberals have a conscience and have empathy, and when they are faced with disagreement and opposition, they try to understand the other person's pov. This is never the case with doctrinaire conservatives!

I've seen the evidence that we are quite capable of pointing out generalizations... apparently it is only when a conservative makes them though...

You are wrong Work in Progress.

And you will never stop wrapping your head around it until you give up on the notion of libertarian or contra-causal free will! Without the jargon, all this means is that we are physical creatures living in a physical world, so ALL of our behaviors and choices are determined by the genetic programming we were born with, plus...and even more importantly...how those genes are influenced by all sorts of environmental factors, right from gestation through childhood and on into adulthood!

What's the point? Rick has no libertarian free will to accept this belief if you are correct; he is genetically and environmentally programmed to believe and act as he does.

It's not that they want to be like this, it's just that for whatever reasons, they started developing chronic depression and were unable to function normally...and sometimes taking a pill for it doesn't work either!

Therefore? I know someone who has chronic severe depression, almost every day he doesn't want to do anything, because the only thing he wants to do is kill himself. He still gets up, puts his game face on and goes to work and school. Has never taken a pill or seen a therapist.

People are more materialistic than they were a generation ago; and at least back then, there was a reasonable chance that the majority of people could improve their material prosperity...today, this is the realm of conservative and libertarian fantasyland.

Everyone that has it needs to abandon a woe is me attitude. It is possible, especially at the lowest rungs of financial stability to improve your situation. Any able bodied person can rise above poverty, any.

It just takes effort, willpower, and perseverance. No one said the word easy.

 

[Sunstone]

It is possible, especially at the lowest rungs of financial stability to improve your situation. Any able bodied person can rise above poverty, any.

It just takes effort, willpower, and perseverance. No one said the word easy.

According to any number of studies on upward social mobility in America, you're pretty much living in the past. Try googling up some of those studies to find out what the current reality is.

 

[Mister Emu]

Study: Upward Mobility No Tougher In U.S. Than Two Decades Ago : NPR

And that is just talking about moving to the highest income bracket, not merely out of poverty period.

I will rephrase slightly, in that I would add sound of mind as well as able bodied...

But if you are sound of mind and able bodied, you choose poverty.

 

[metis]

Let me post the entire article, and please note parts that I underline:

A new study finds that contrary to widespread belief, it's no harder to climb the economic ladder in the United States today than it was 20 years ago.

But the study did find that moving up that ladder is still a lot more difficult in the U.S. than in other developed countries.

Economists have been looking into the issue of U.S. economic mobility for a long time. But they've often been hampered by the lack of adequate data, says Gary Solon, an economics professor at Michigan State University. He calls the study released this week much more comprehensive than anything that's come before.

"The unusual thing is that this research team has gotten cooperation from the Internal Revenue Service to access tax return data, which of course are not generally available to researchers," Solon says.

The researchers, led by Raj Chetty of Harvard University, looked at low-income people born in the early 1970s, and how likely they were to advance to top income brackets. The researchers then compared their economic mobility with that of people born later.

"What we found is that mobility has remained remarkably stable," says Harvard's Nathaniel Hendren, a co-author of the study. "The chance in which kids can climb up or down the income ladder has remained pretty stable over the last 20 to 25 years."

The report comes at a time of growing concern about economic mobility, and deep political divisions about how to address it. There is a widespread belief that the United States has become a much more classbound society, a place where rising above your station has become a lot harder.

The study "addresses a very burning question about whether the recent rise in inequality has substantially changed economic mobility," says David Autor, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "And at least in the short time window in which they're able to look, the answer is no. So that's good news."

The bad news is that growing income inequality has made the gap between income levels much wider than in the past, Autor says. A person who's born at the bottom and stays there is further behind than ever before.

"The costs of immobility have risen, because the lifetime difference in earnings now between someone born at the bottom quartile versus top quartile is much, much greater than it used to be," Autor says.

The study also contained some other disturbing findings. It said economic mobility in the United States remains behind that of other wealthy countries. An American born at the bottom has about an 8 percent chance of rising to the top, it found; the odds are twice that in Denmark.

"The political rhetoric has gone down a path of saying, 'Oh, maybe it's getting harder to move up in the income distribution,' " Hendren says. "But the sad fact is that it's always been very hard in the United States relative to other countries, and it hasn't gotten any better, it hasn't gotten any worse."

But the study also says economic mobility varies a lot from place to place in the United States. Rates of advancement in the Seattle, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco metro areas compared favorably with European countries. But many parts of the Southeast and the Rust Belt look more like the developing world.

"In areas, say, like Charlotte, N.C., kids born in the bottom portion of the income distribution have about a 4 to 5 percent chance of reaching the top," Hendren says. "But kids born in, say, Salt Lake City, have about an 11 percent chance of reaching the top if they're born to a poor family."

The study doesn't try to find out why economic mobility varies so much. But it does note that there's a strong correlation between advancement and certain kinds of social factors: the quality of schools, the degree of racial segregation, and whether you grew up in a two-parent household.

 

[Sunstone]

Study: Upward Mobility No Tougher In U.S. Than Two Decades Ago : NPR

And that is just talking about moving to the highest income bracket, not merely out of poverty period.

I will rephrase slightly, in that I would add sound of mind as well as able bodied...

But if you are sound of mind and able bodied, you choose poverty.

Let me post the entire article, and please note parts that I underline:

A new study finds that contrary to widespread belief, it's no harder to climb the economic ladder in the United States today than it was 20 years ago.

But the study did find that moving up that ladder is still a lot more difficult in the U.S. than in other developed countries.

Economists have been looking into the issue of U.S. economic mobility for a long time. But they've often been hampered by the lack of adequate data, says Gary Solon, an economics professor at Michigan State University. He calls the study released this week much more comprehensive than anything that's come before.

"The unusual thing is that this research team has gotten cooperation from the Internal Revenue Service to access tax return data, which of course are not generally available to researchers," Solon says.

The researchers, led by Raj Chetty of Harvard University, looked at low-income people born in the early 1970s, and how likely they were to advance to top income brackets. The researchers then compared their economic mobility with that of people born later.

"What we found is that mobility has remained remarkably stable," says Harvard's Nathaniel Hendren, a co-author of the study. "The chance in which kids can climb up or down the income ladder has remained pretty stable over the last 20 to 25 years."

The report comes at a time of growing concern about economic mobility, and deep political divisions about how to address it. There is a widespread belief that the United States has become a much more classbound society, a place where rising above your station has become a lot harder.

The study "addresses a very burning question about whether the recent rise in inequality has substantially changed economic mobility," says David Autor, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "And at least in the short time window in which they're able to look, the answer is no. So that's good news."

The bad news is that growing income inequality has made the gap between income levels much wider than in the past, Autor says. A person who's born at the bottom and stays there is further behind than ever before.

"The costs of immobility have risen, because the lifetime difference in earnings now between someone born at the bottom quartile versus top quartile is much, much greater than it used to be," Autor says.

The study also contained some other disturbing findings. It said economic mobility in the United States remains behind that of other wealthy countries. An American born at the bottom has about an 8 percent chance of rising to the top, it found; the odds are twice that in Denmark.

"The political rhetoric has gone down a path of saying, 'Oh, maybe it's getting harder to move up in the income distribution,' " Hendren says. "But the sad fact is that it's always been very hard in the United States relative to other countries, and it hasn't gotten any better, it hasn't gotten any worse."

But the study also says economic mobility varies a lot from place to place in the United States. Rates of advancement in the Seattle, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco metro areas compared favorably with European countries. But many parts of the Southeast and the Rust Belt look more like the developing world.

"In areas, say, like Charlotte, N.C., kids born in the bottom portion of the income distribution have about a 4 to 5 percent chance of reaching the top," Hendren says. "But kids born in, say, Salt Lake City, have about an 11 percent chance of reaching the top if they're born to a poor family."

The study doesn't try to find out why economic mobility varies so much. But it does note that there's a strong correlation between advancement and certain kinds of social factors: the quality of schools, the degree of racial segregation, and whether you grew up in a two-parent household.

Mr Emu, the study you post looks at only the past 20 or so years. I'm 57. I think in longer terms than that. And it's my impression that things were a whole lot easier 40 years ago than they are today. But you certainly should keep to your views. The more staunchly conservatives ignore what's happening, the less relevant conservatism will become to the voters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Study: Upward Mobility No Tougher In U.S. Than Two Decades Ago : NPR
And that is just talking about moving to the highest income bracket, not merely out of poverty period.
I will rephrase slightly, in that I would add sound of mind as well as able bodied...
But if you are sound of mind and able bodied, you choose poverty.

Some things have made advancement easier (eg, internet based opportunities, cel phones), while some things have made it harder, eg, governmental barriers to entering a market.
Story time:
Back when I had employees, when an aspiring independent contractor wanted to work for me, my workers compensation insurance policy & the state required (both de juro & de facto) that the aspirant also buy this insurance, even though they wouldn't be covered by their own policy. Since it could cost them $1000 a year or so (if they could even by a policy), this prevented many from qualifying. When I've made exceptions, I ended up paying thru the nose when I had an insurance audit. And this is just one of many problems which government presents to someone who tries to start a business. Gov would rather that we all be employees, eh?

 

[work in progress]

I've seen the evidence that we are quite capable of pointing out generalizations... apparently it is only when a conservative makes them though...

You are wrong Work in Progress.

About what? You didn't actually make a point here.

What's the point? Rick has no libertarian free will to accept this belief if you are correct; he is genetically and environmentally programmed to believe and act as he does.

True, and if I accept the findings of psychological and neurological research of recent years, showing that conservatives and liberals differ on more than superficial attitudes about social and political issues, and also show evidence of differences in physical brain function, then there may be no real path towards finding common ground on major issues...especially during stressful times:
Liberals Are From the ACC, Conservatives Are From the Amygdala? : The Intersection

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...e-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/

Therefore? I know someone who has chronic severe depression, almost every day he doesn't want to do anything, because the only thing he wants to do is kill himself. He still gets up, puts his game face on and goes to work and school. Has never taken a pill or seen a therapist.

And I'm not sure what the point was here either...except that there is a kernel of truth that most people today (no doubt influenced by the constant barrage of drug ads) reach for a remedy - antidepressant, antipsychotic or some other mood-altering drug of choice (booze, recreational drugs), rather than accept the simple fact that people are born or develop early in life - different emotional set points.

Some people are ridiculously upbeat and happy all the time, like they are taking drugs already...and I try to avoid those kinds of people...I find them irritating to infuriating, while others have an almost permanent depressive state, that puts them at high risk for alcohol and/or substance abuse, because modern pop capitalist culture promotes the meme that everyone should be happy all the time, and something is wrong with you if you're not!

It should be noted that mind/body is a two way street. Neurochemical release affects our moods, as one ancient Greek philosopher (I forget which one) noted thousands of years ago from the intoxicating effects of wine, in his critique of Platonic dualism - "when I drink too much wine, does my soul also become drunk?"

So, we recognize that the physical effects the mental; but on the flipside, what we think about, has physical effects on the brain, through stimulating the release of neurochemicals - oxytocin or vassopressin. So, your friend may consider it more important to be in control of mental states, rather than rely on a psychiatric drug that may elevate mood, but likely include lots of physical side effects baggage, including the possibility of drug dependency.

Looking at the big picture here - there have been a few psychological studies....I don't know exactly how conclusive the evidence is, that indicate it is likely that people who tend to be on the depressive side of the line, are more realistic about themselves and others, than the majority of people, who tend towards optimism - which appears to lead them towards delusions of their abilities and often be too trusting of others. So, someone who is depressive is less likely to be duped by scammers or fail spectacularly in life because of over-reach.

And, also looking at the big picture - the public issues of greatest importance to me over the last five years or so, have been environmental, and coming from having no background in science of any kind, as I have learned about climate change, overpopulation, resource scarcity, species extinctions and other crucial issues, I have found myself continually dumbfounded by the inability of the majority of people - liberals and conservatives, to follow through these issues and consider their likely collective impacts. The unfortunate reality today, is that this world may be doomed by the eternal optimists, while if there were more of us who were pessimists of some degree, we would have done what was necessary to avoid disaster decades ago.

Everyone that has it needs to abandon a woe is me attitude. It is possible, especially at the lowest rungs of financial stability to improve your situation. Any able bodied person can rise above poverty, any.

It just takes effort, willpower, and perseverance. No one said the word easy.

And on this point, I part company again. Because judging people as: lazy, lacking motivation etc., is back to the libertarian free will treatment of all minds being essentially identical. We can't get inside other people's heads and know what is wrong with them when they fail, because we don't have full understanding of the physical system that produces their conscious mental states, which we base our judgments on.

On the other side, the free will argument excuses an economic system where money = power. Supposedly, in this fictional account, every child born into an impoverished ghetto of a collapsing rust belt city is potentially a John Galt, just waiting to bust loose and take over the world. So, failure to rise above their beginnings and achieve great financial fortune is treated as personal failure, and when that failure is consciously or subconsciously tied to race, religion or ethnicity, then it is tagged as collective failure of that group, because they have failed to take advantage of the free market principles available to them that the billionaire has taken advantage of.

Nevermind that the self-made millionaire meme today is mostly a myth...the vast majority of the wealthy come into this world with large inheritances, as well as having the best start in life available. Even if the rags-to-riches story was true, it would still be using an exception to try to prove a rule.

 

[work in progress]

Mr Emu, the study you post looks at only the past 20 or so years. I'm 57. I think in longer terms than that. And it's my impression that things were a whole lot easier 40 years ago than they are today. But you certainly should keep to your views. The more staunchly conservatives ignore what's happening, the less relevant conservatism will become to the voters.

Good point. But, the first thing I thought...when I saw his link was just how far NPR and PBS have descended from their mission of being public broadcasters in the public interest from their founding missions almost half a century ago!

Last year, the PBS documentary series - Independent Lens, pulled funding from a documentary producer who was half way through making a film profiling the Koch Brothers. And if that wasn't bad enough, they cancelled further viewing of an already produced feature called Park Avenue - which was created to profile the people who live along this long street which graduates from superrich to less rich through Manhattan, and across the bridge to the abject poverty of Park Avenue in the Bronx...where interestingly enough, many of the low paid service staff of the hotels and luxury condos on the Manhattan side, have to live. The likely reason why PBS took that movie out of the regular rotation was because it included a segment of the most expensive luxury high rise on Park Avenue where David Koch just happened to have a unit, where he stays when he is in New York on business. An anonymous staffer at the complex declared that he never talks to any staff or leaves any tips...sort of like the royalty of old, I would say.

But what a statement all this makes about what happens to public broadcasting after you take away public funding and make it dependent on donations. Unlike Pacifica and other fringe, struggling public media in the U.S., they went right after the big game wealthy donors, and paid the price - public broadcasters that are propaganda mouthpieces for large corporations and charitable trusts of the billionaires....and that will have something to say about the future of the U.S. political process in the coming years, as these same people buy politicians as freely as they have bought control of public media!