The study in question looked at all 50 states from 1952 to 2012. What it found was that the more liberal the representative, the more people in that district drank. This is consistent with findings in Russia, where socialists drank more than their conservative counterparts, and seems to be true in Britain too, where heavy drinking correlates to voting for Labor.
The study authors speculate that the reasons for this might be that liberals tend to rebel through drinking or they believe that public healthcare will pick up the pieces if their drinking becomes a problem. Those explanations are, of course, bullspit. For one thing, there really are no differences across the country when it comes to healthcare coverage for the poor, so that can't explain these results. Ditto in Britain and Russia. As for rebelling, why would liberals increase their rebellion as their representatives became more liberal? And if you’re going to say that their rebellion depends on the federal government, then tell me why these numbers correlate to local representatives rather than national trends... and how does this work in Russia or Scotland where they’ve had nothing but liberal governments?
Anyway, the real reason is something much less flattering to liberals.
First, I’ve said this before, liberalism is symptomatic of short-term thinking. If you look at liberal ideas, liberal complaints and solutions that liberals offer, what you will invariably find is that liberals focus on the world in the short term only and they seek to solve problems immediately and only for the moment. They pay no attention to long-term effects.
Why does this matter? Because it tells us something about liberal minds. It tells us that liberals look for instant gratification without regard to the long-term harm that may cause. That means the liberals will naturally be drawn to things that are considered “sins” – alcohol, drugs, uncomplicated sex because they offer immediate pleasure and you only see the harm if you think about the effects long term. Moreover, as anyone who has ever visited a place like Vegas can attest, sins don’t come in ones. People who have them, tend to have many because it's about a way of thinking.
Now, imagine if you are someone who sees life in this manner. You drink, you do drugs, you are a sex fiend. You dropped out of school because you didn’t see the point because it wasn't helping you today. You’ve probably got a criminal record, from things that seemed justified at the time. And you don’t understand why they can’t just take some stuff from rich people and give it to you. Who would that hurt? It’s not like rich people ain’t got more than they need already.
Are you starting to see my point? This is the attitude in the Hillbilly hinterlands of Appalachia. This is the attitude in inner-city ghettos. These people live life in the moment, seeking to satisfy their immediate prurient desires without concern about what tomorrow may bring. When it comes time to vote and these people are faced with a choice between a party that stands for working your way to a better life or a party that promises to “gimme stuff,” which do you think they will choose?
Said differently, liberalism is the natural political philosophy of those to whom “sin” is a way of life. In other words, liberalism doesn’t cause alcoholism, liberalism just fits with the mindset of alcoholics... and sex fiends... and kleptomaniacs... and the lazy... and drug addicts... and anyone who acts without thought to effect.
As an aside, this also explains why so many movie stars are liberals. It takes true short-term thinking to become a movie star. The odds of being cast and then becoming famous are so infinitesimally small that if you stopped to consider them before you started, you would never go... it’s like betting on winning the lottery (another Appalachia pursuit). So when you see an actor, more likely than not, they are someone who never gave much thought to how the future would actually unfold. They simply went with their impulse to go be a star. It is natural that people like that would then also develop drug and alcohol problems, as so many do, that they would get involved in sex scandals, as so many do, and that they would become liberals... it's all in the mind.
Thoughts?
24 comments:
Interesting idea. Though I'd have to think on it.
Let me know your thoughts Kit. It seems pretty obvious that all these things are related because they all show the same kind of short-term thinking. Very predictable.
I´m a bit surprised. A statistical relationship between liberalism and sin seems entirely plausible. I just didn´t expect it to be geographically significant. There are many liberals who are conservative when it comes to their own money, health, family or education. The puritan streak is just as strong in certain modern liberals as in Christian conservatives, even if the aims are different.
These liberals preach what they don´t practice, advocate liberal lifestyles and policies for the masses and vote for the left mostly out of cultural snobbery. I guess it is the underclass they create (which reinforces their claims in return) that is responsible for this statistic.
Let´s not forget the secondary effect of conservatives being driven to drink by having a liberal representative.
Meh. Culture plays a role, but a lot of what you are describing sounds like an age thing to me.
Don't get me wrong, their are young people who willingly abstain from all bad behavior and old sybarites, but generally speaking people tend to settle down as they get older.
Its also worth keeping in mind that Hollywood types get temptation thrown at them left and right and they have enough money and power that they stand a higher chance of getting away with crimes than us peons.
Let's be honest, if gorgeous women started throwing themselves at any group of guys, some would say no, but most of that that group of guys would become 'sex fiends'. That's why conservative politicians, businessmen and actors have just as many sex and drug scandals as their liberal counterparts.
As for actors and other creative types, I don't look down on people who take career longshots (especially if they made the shot). Its vastly safer to get a 9 to 5 working for someone else than to bet one's future on your ability to become a successful entrepreneur, writer, actor or what have you, which is why most of us opt for the safe choice, but provided the idea isn't horribly stupid I respect people who bet against the odds. I remember my first college roommate eventually had to drop out because his father's business failed (only met his dad for a day, didn't quiz him about his politics).
Betting one's entire existence on something that risky is insane ('I shall become famous or starve to death in an alley!) but writing a novel or auditioning for roles on the side while working as a waitress or security guard or what have you isn't.
I don't drink a lot becasue I have to get up and got to work, something an amazing number of liberals don't do.
This study (and to a degree you as well, AP) seemingly didn't take into account the growing number of Republican Party Animals chapters sprouting up across the country, notably the Hollywood contingent, who I will put up against any liberal groups in being able to pound shots. So I will instead offer words from the Book of Homer, applicable to whatever one's political affiliation: Alcohol, the reason for, and solution to, all of life's problems.
"Betting one's entire existence on something that risky is insane ('I shall become famous or starve to death in an alley!) but writing a novel or auditioning for roles on the side while working as a waitress or security guard or what have you isn't."
People would be surprised to know how many famous writers and actors and directors were working small, odd, and sometimes just plain weird jobs before they became big.
I don't know. Without looking at the study myself, this seems a bit thin--not least because Appalachia regularly elects Republicans, and the past few years have been increasingly drink-worthy for conservatives. There might be something to it, but I have a hard time seeing it as symptomatic of some huge difference between Left and Right.
El Gordo, Don't forget that liberals and conservatives both cluster. Both tend to move away from the other and they tend to find each other. Hence, conservatives flee places like San Francisco and liberals flee red states. And in places like Appalachia, people with initiative tend to leave, leaving a welfare class.
In terms of the puritan streak, you re right about the liberal upper class. They are insanely puritanical. But the underclass is not... not at all. Having spent far too much time in various parts of Appalachia and inner-city Baltimore, I can tell you none of those people are the slightest bit puritanical (meth, child sex, rape, single motherhood rampant, criminal records, welfare, gangs, racists, drug dealing, settle disputes with violence, etc.), nor are they the least bit ashamed of the way they are. They live a life that normal people simply cannot fathom.
Anthony, This was found to be tied to geography, not age. That said, culture and geography are likely tied together to a large degree because these people tend to cluster.
In terms of people settling down with age, that's how normal people work, but that's not accurate in the underclass. When I was in West Virginia, there was no age difference between the behaviors. 60 year olds were just as likely to be rapists, meth heads and living off the government as 20 year olds. The only difference was that by that point, the alcohol and drugs had destroyed their bodies and most of them were on their deathbeds.
On actors, I'm actually not criticizing the choice. It is simply a choice -- a different set of priorities. Society needs both short and long term thinkers. The problem becomes when people are blind to the long-shot nature and don't even consider the long term effects. Said differently, I'm totally cool with long-shots, but people need a backup plan.
Critch, Isn't that the truth! But again, joblessness is short term thinking. "I don't have a job that rewards me at the moment, so I would rather not work." No thought is giving to working your way up to a job that does reward you.
Eric, LOL! I'm glad to hear we're catching up. :)
Kit, That's usually how it's been done. To break into the arts, people tended to take side jobs that paid for their food and rent (hopefully) and then concentrate on whatever they needed to do to break into the field.
T-Rav, The statistics say differently.
Another way to look at this is to think of long- and short-term thinking as taking calculated vs. uncalculated risks.
tryanmax, I'm not sure that's entirely fair.
There's no reason to think that short term thinkers don't calculate risks. It's just a different calculation. In fact, I would argue that both calculate risks, but how they measure the consequences is where they differ. Indeed, a short-term thinker will weigh only the immediate cost/benefit and discount the future, whereas the long-term thinker will essentially weigh the long term cost/benefit and discount the present. This is why conservatives and liberals never agree -- they value different things at a fundamental level.
This is also a clue on how to succeed in politics... make sure that anything you offer sounds like it will work both in the short and long term and both groups will follow you. (Helping you in that, liberals are suckers for placebos.)
Ok I see how you're looking at it now.
Yeah, the short-term v. long-term thing isn't an insult, it's a different way of looking at life with extremely different results. Some good, some bad.
Bad: People with a short-term view tend to support ideas that solve a problem at the moment, but cause all kinds of long-term unintended consequences. In effect, they support ideas that seem fine at the moment, but which blow up on them over time and which make problems worse. Then they try to fix those problems with similarly short-term ideas, causing the snowball to keep growing.
Good: They take risks the long-termers won't. And those risks are often what change the world -- becoming an actor, inventor, starting a business, etc. If the world were only full of long-termers, we would have very little in the way of culture or innovation.
So they are a mixed bag, just like long-term thinking is a mixed bag. Society needs both.
So basically, liberals just come up with short-term solutions that can be hatched between tequila shots. Short-term solutions for those alcohol-soaked short-term memories...
Yep, pretty much. Fix it now, I don't care how, I don't want to hear about... just throw some money at it or pass a law declaring how things should be.... let's go get drunk.
Liberalism in a nutshell.
"I can tell you none of those people are the slightest bit puritanical (meth, child sex, rape, single motherhood rampant, criminal records, welfare, gangs, racists, drug dealing, settle disputes with violence, etc.), nor are they the least bit ashamed of the way they are. They live a life that normal people simply cannot fathom."
They are qualified to be cops in Orange County.
El Gordo, I've never been to Orange County, but I have run into corrupt cops before. And yeah, when they go bad, they go bad.
I´ve never been there either. As you probably guessed I was thinking of the Kelly Thomas murder (really have no other word for it).
Post a Comment