Madonna Was Right
THE MATERIAL WORLD IS A WINDOW INTO VOTERS’ MINDS
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – August 11, 2008 – Perhaps swayed by the increasingly socialist tilt of the nation, it’s become hip for each political party to deride the other as being comprised of rich constituents. We’ve always thought it was pretty cool to be called rich, but in this woe-is-me culture, it’s chic to be down-and-out … and those who aren’t bear the political brunt of their respective party’s failings.
“Latte liberal” is one such catchy epithet, the purpose of which is to blister the Democratic Party by calling out its members as uppity. Naturally, liberals play by the same guidebook, labeling conservatives as capitalist pigs.
Then, of course, there’s the flip side: Republicans are called white-trash rednecks; Democrats are considered bottom-barrel minorities.
So which is it?
It turns out that the “latte liberal” label is an example of truth spoken in jest. New Zogby results confirm a correlation between one’s shopping habits and one’s political persuasion. Says pollster John Zogby:
“There’s a new world of retail politics out there today, one where voters and consumers converge. Indeed, so powerful is this correlation between where Americans shop and how we vote that I have begun to wonder if old paradigms like Red States and Blue States have become obsolete and if the more revealing “precincts” in our lives are actually the stores we frequent-the places, that is, where we the people vote every day with our hard-earned dollars.”
In the poll, Democratic voters shopped at Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, and Filene’s, while Republican voters chose Sears, Wal-Mart and JC Penney’s – all by large margins. Of the reason for the divide, Zogby says that the conservative message appeals to “the downscale, bargain-shopping American voter,” while the liberal paradigm draws supporters who prefer “the elitist, upscale, even snooty” venues.
So maybe that’s why Democrats are always prattling on about economic hardship and cooing breathlessly about their next handout beneficiary. Republicans, it seems, know the value of a dollar, and so they don’t need that gubmint check every month. Democrats, comparatively, appear to buy what they want from where they want, necessitating the nanny state.
That Republicans want the rich to keep getting richer gets at the heart of the poll: In America, we are rewarded for prudence with prosperity – or we used to be. But in millennial politics, frivolity trumps frugality – and those who are prudent are required to coddle those who aren’t.
Comments
By male sapphist on August 11th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Should economic wards of the state be able to cast a vote? At what point are we going to realize that the non-productive have no right to the treasury and that when they use the force of government to take the fruits of *my* labor it is nothing less than theft.
Hopefully, one day, the poverty pimps will be thrown out on their ear and the US can regain it’s greatness.
By Margaret on August 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hey, Mande. Thanks for calling b.s. on the common notion that Republicans are the rich, uppity Country Club set, while the Dems are the party of the “people.” It has long been the opposite, but I can’t tell you how many times a week I have to have that argument with one liberal friend or another. My take is that all these status-conscious, trendy hipsters gravitate to the Dems because it makes them feel better about themselves. It’s okay to blow lots of money on labels and lattes and expensive vacations, as long as you make a lot of public noise about “the poor” and urge the government to take care of them. Liberals don’t want to focus on those things that might REALLY help the poor – marital fidelity, spiritual development, hard work, self-restraint, moderation – because THEY don’t want to pursue those virtues in their own lives. Too much trouble, too passe, and no instant gratification, man! So instead, they make it all about this abstract concept, Poverty, as if it just springs from a vacuum, and can be “cured” with enough money from the government. It’s like giving Tylenol to a kid with leukemia. The kid feels better for a few hours, but he’s still got leukemia.
Anyway, good work!
By rick on August 11th, 2008 at 10:03 am
AMEN
By FWFIV on August 11th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Margaret-
Your misguided sterotypes epitomize the ignorance of conservative thinking in this country. Myself and plenty of other so called liberals”work hard, are loyal and go to church just like you do. Any objective judgement of our current president shows that his brand of “conservatism” has been bad for the country as a whole. I/we just want what is best for the United States of America.
But, when faced with a mountain of facts and evidence you can only rant about the “libruls and the poor”
By Margaret on August 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
FWFIV, clearly you have mistaken me for a fan of George W. Bush, and have mistaken GWB for a conservative. Talk about misguided stereotypes!
I apologize for lumping all “libruls” together. It’s a blogger’s habit – for simplicity’s sake – and a bad one. I don’t like being “lumped” either. (See above.) Like you (I assume, anyway), I am concerned about the poor, and I spend a good amount of my personal time and energy helping the poor. But I do not believe in forcible income redistribution by the government, nor do I think welfare solves anybody’s problems in the long run. I believe that the sexual revolution, combined with a growing “anything goes” secularism, have created a lot of problems for this country – spiritual, moral, AND economic – that won’t be solved by any government program. And yes, I can even admit that some of those problems stem from unbridled capitalism. (Materialism unchecked by a religious sense of duty and charity was NEVER the plan… but here we are.) Believe it or not, I too just want what’s best for the U.S.A., too. We just seem to disagree on how to get there.
By FWFIV on August 11th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Margarfet-
Thanks for the respectful response, we probably aren’t too far away from agreeing on most things.
I do want to point out that the most comprehensive welfare reform package in the nation’s history was passed under a dem (Clinton) as president. The free ride for life from welfare is over and has been for a while. While we might disagree on current social welfare programs, the fact is that they are a miniscule burden compared to our overall budget.
The vastly decreased value of the dollar, caused by massive spending overruns and misguided tax cuts is creating problems for all of us now. Welfare and other social programs, while not fair to the responsible citizens of this country, are but a small part of the overall picture. I assumed you were one of those people who would have everyone believe that welfare is the sole reason for our national budget troubles. Reading your next post, I realize you do recognize the reality of the situation.
By Christina Jeffrey on August 12th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Come on–those of us over 30 remember that Clinton had no real political option and wisely chose to take credit for the biggest welfare reform bill in American history. Clever politician, Bill, but it wasn’t his idea, it was the Republican Congress under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich. Gingrich may have flubbed the budget debate (at least the politics of it), but he and his Congress won the Welfare argument. So, I guess we might say, “Gingrich was right,” even if Bill got all the credit.