Is America really a "Conservative" Nation?

[WIP]

I don't know how many times, especially since Obama was elected President, that I've heard the constant refrain:"America is a center-right nation" or some similar drivel. This homily is not only preached at Foxnews and right wing radio, it is also frequently drummed in to everyone's heads at CNN, during the Sunday morning news shows, and the so called "liberal" newspapers like the New York Times. But is it really true?

It's a belief that business leaders would prefer, but it is likely based on surveys that ask people how they identify themselves: conservative or liberal, without delving a little further into what the common people understand as "conservative" or "liberal." The last, being especially crucial, because the word "liberal" has been so relentlessly demonized over the last 30 years in American rightwing politics and media.

So, let's take a closer look about how conservative Americans are about wealth distribution. The following study finds that the majority of Americans would prefer a more equal wealth distribution of nations such as Sweden, compared to what they have now -- growing poverty, disappearing middle class, and a top ruling class that has doubled, or tripled their wealth over the last 20 years.

Americans generally underestimate the degree of income inequality in the United States, and if given a choice, would distribute wealth in a similar way to the social democracies of Scandinavia, a new study finds..................

According to research (PDF) carried out by Michael I. Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University, and flagged by Paul Kedrosky at the Infectious Greed blog, 92 percent of Americans would choose to live in a society with far less income disparity than the US, choosing Sweden's model over that of the US.

What's more, the study's authors say that this applies to people of all income levels and all political leanings: The poor and the rich, Democrats and Republicans are all equally likely to choose the Swedish model......................

Recent analyses have shown that income inequality in the US has grown steadily for the past three decades and reached its highest level on record, exceeding even the large disparities seen in the 1920s, before the Great Depression. Norton and Ariely estimate that the one percent wealthiest Americans hold nearly 50 percent of the country's wealth, while the richest 20 percent hold 84 percent of the wealth.

But in their study, the authors found Americans generally underestimate the income disparity. When asked to estimate, respondents on average estimated that the top 20 percent have 59 percent of the wealth (as opposed to the real number, 84 percent). And when asked to choose how much the top 20 percent should have, on average respondents said 32 percent -- a number similar to the wealth distribution seen in Sweden.

"What is most striking" about the results, argue the authors, is that they show "more consensus than disagreement among ... different demographic groups. All groups – even the wealthiest respondents – desired a more equal distribution of wealth than what they estimated the current United States level to be, while all groups also desired some inequality – even the poorest respondents."

The authors suggest the reason that American voters have not made more of an issue of the growing income gap is that they may simply not be aware of it. "Second, just as people have erroneous beliefs about the actual level of wealth inequality, they may also hold overly optimistic beliefs about opportunities for social mobility in the United States, beliefs which in turn may drive support for unequal distributions of wealth," they write.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/569425/study:_most_americans_want_wealth_distribution_similar_to_sweden?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

So, now the problem is to break through the wall of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies perpetrated by the corporate media every day, and inform the public of why taxes on upper income levels, and corporate and estate taxes need to be increased, as well as a pushback against the anti-union legislation of the last 30 years that has destroyed the private sector labour movement, and is now making their final attack on the remaining public sector unions!

I should add that numbers on Canadian wealth distribution and growing inequality in recent years, pretty much mirrors the results in the U.S., so the average Canadian (especially idiots who support Conservative plans to lower corporate tax rates) are in a similar situation of ignorance of our growing inequality.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So, now the problem is to break through the wall of disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies perpetrated by the corporate media every day, and inform the public of why taxes on upper income levels, and corporate and estate taxes need to be increased, as well as a pushback against the anti-union legislation of the last 30 years that has destroyed the private sector labour movement, and is now making their final attack on the remaining public sector unions!

Don't forget to include a nice rant about increasing all US marginal rates back to what they were if "the past" is central to your point of view. Bush tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich.

I should add that numbers on Canadian wealth distribution and growing inequality in recent years, pretty much mirrors the results in the U.S., so the average Canadian (especially idiots who support Conservative plans to lower corporate tax rates) are in a similar situation of ignorance of our growing inequality.

Oh my! I wonder if Americans will reciprocate worry as much as you do in this regard. Those poor Canadians!

As for America being conservative, you don't seem to understand what that means beyond tax policy. Obviously Americans have paid higher taxes in the past but remained conservative on many other issues. Comparisons to Canada, as usual, leave us with the same lopsided conclusions.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

Don't forget to include a nice rant about increasing all US marginal rates back to what they were if "the past" is central to your point of view. Bush tax cuts were across the board, not just for the rich.

How about taking tax rates back to what they were during the Eisenhower years? He was a Republican too; but if all we have to go on is the constant drone of rightwing propaganda, you'd think that it's only been Democrats raising taxes. And Bush's tax cuts did not fuel economic growth. All they did was speed up income inequality and allow U.S. business to expand job creation IN CHINA!

Oh my! I wonder if Americans will reciprocate worry as much as you do in this regard. Those poor Canadians!

As for America being conservative, you don't seem to understand what that means beyond tax policy. Obviously Americans have paid higher taxes in the past but remained conservative on many other issues. Comparisons to Canada, as usual, leave us with the same lopsided conclusions.

Sounds like you're referring here to social issues....and it's a shame that so many Americans have voted against their own economic interests with tax cuts for the rich, and anti-labour legislation, all for the purpose of defending them against abortion and gay marriage!

[bloodyminded]

Within a generation, the majority of Americans will support same-sex marrigae, by a long shot. It will have become normalized, a non-issue. Further, we'll discover that almost no one alive ever opposed it, just as every single person alive has always, always admired Martin Luther King!

Hell, in canada, there was fierce debate about same sex marriage. For a while. Now, according to a MacLean magazine poll (not exactly a leftist rag) about 70% of Canadians support the notion.

Americans are deeply intelligent, moral people. That's how we know they'll come around on this issue.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

How about taking tax rates back to what they were during the Eisenhower years? He was a Republican too; but if all we have to go on is the constant drone of rightwing propaganda, you'd think that it's only been Democrats raising taxes. And Bush's tax cuts did not fuel economic growth. All they did was speed up income inequality and allow U.S. business to expand job creation IN CHINA!

Sure...why not, but you had better understand more than just marginal tax rates. JFK's tax cuts linger as very effective "propaganda" after all these years. Income equality is your socialist objective, not conservative America's. Why doesn't your oppressed worker class include Chinese labor?

Sounds like you're referring here to social issues....and it's a shame that so many Americans have voted against their own economic interests with tax cuts for the rich, and anti-labour legislation, all for the purpose of defending them against abortion and gay marriage!

Now you lament the very choices that Americans have the right to make for themselves, regardless of your navel gazing from Canada. Class envy rhetoric will only get you so far....how is it working for ya' up north?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Hell, in canada, there was fierce debate about same sex marriage. For a while. Now, according to a MacLean magazine poll (not exactly a leftist rag) about 70% of Canadians support the notion.

Canada was neither bold nor brave on this issue, backing into it via the courts. Hell, sexual orientation and equity was stricken from original drafts of the Constitution Act by Trudeau for political expediency. Several US states engaged the issue long before Canada.

Americans are deeply intelligent, moral people. That's how we know they'll come around on this issue.

Or not...it's their choice to make. "Coming around" implies that they have to agree with Canada to be on the "good side" of the issue when nearly all other nations reside on the "bad"!

[bloodyminded]

Canada was neither bold nor brave on this issue

No, not at all, and of course that's nowhere implied.

Or not...it's their choice to make.

Of course it is. That's not even debatable.

I made a prediction, based on one observation (the increasing normalization of homosexuality) and on two of my biases:

1. That same sex marriage should be accepted; and

2. That the Americans are intelligent and just people.

"Coming around" implies that they have to agree with Canada to be on the "good side" of the issue when nearly all other nations reside on the "bad"!

Yes, and this will likely be the case. In many other countries too, I suspect.

We're all following Spain's example.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

No, not at all, and of course that's nowhere implied.

I think it is implied, certainly not by you directly, but by the Canadian body politic.

I made a prediction, based on one observation (the increasing normalization of homosexuality) and on two of my biases:

1. That same sex marriage should be accepted; and

2. That the Americans are intelligent and just people.

Same gender marriage is like any other civil rights issue in America, regardless of intelligence.

Yes, and this will likely be the case. In many other countries too, I suspect.

We're all following Spain's example.

This just means that what was once the "bad side" may become the "good side".

[bloodyminded]

I think it is implied, certainly not by you directly, but by the Canadian body politic.

Maybe so. Not for me though, and not my fault. I'm uninterested in pissing matches between geopolitical entities, except in an academic sense, as an interesting phenomenon.

Same gender marriage is like any other civil rights issue in America, regardless of intelligence.

Alright.

This just means that what was once the "bad side" may become the "good side".

Only because of my clumsy shorthand. "Good" and "bad," sure, but only within the boundaries of my opinions, not some objective ethics that I am declaring an inarguable given.

Edited April 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[jbg]

I don't know how many times, especially since Obama was elected President, that I've heard the constant refrain:"America is a center-right nation" or some similar drivel. This homily is not only preached at Foxnews and right wing radio, it is also frequently drummed in to everyone's heads at CNN, during the Sunday morning news shows, and the so called "liberal" newspapers like the New York Times. But is it really true?

It's a belief that business leaders would prefer, but it is likely based on surveys that ask people how they identify themselves: conservative or liberal, without delving a little further into what the common people understand as "conservative" or "liberal." The last, being especially crucial, because the word "liberal" has been so relentlessly demonized over the last 30 years in American rightwing politics and media.

So, let's take a closer look about how conservative Americans are about wealth distribution. The following study finds that the majority of Americans would prefer a more equal wealth distribution of nations such as Sweden, compared to what they have now -- growing poverty, disappearing middle class, and a top ruling class that has doubled, or tripled their wealth over the last 20 years.

*********************************

I should add that numbers on Canadian wealth distribution and growing inequality in recent years, pretty much mirrors the results in the U.S., so the average Canadian (especially idiots who support Conservative plans to lower corporate tax rates) are in a similar situation of ignorance of our growing inequality.

You picked out one issue that isn't in the forefront of people's minds. Trust me, people's views on income are a small part of what distinguishes conservative from liberal. Size and scope of government, views on crime, views on foreign policy and (unfortunately since I'm not a so-con) views on social issues bulk far larger. On all of those matters the U.S. is a center-right country.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know how many times, especially since Obama was elected President, that I've heard the constant refrain:"America is a center-right nation" or some similar drivel. This homily is not only preached at Foxnews and right wing radio, it is also frequently drummed in to everyone's heads at CNN, during the Sunday morning news shows, and the so called "liberal" newspapers like the New York Times. But is it really true?

It's also frequently drummed in by a large portion of the rest of the world. The world at large refers to us as conservative "christian" etc. I do believe it's' true in some respects, not so in others. Also, I believe that more conservatives than liberals actually go to the polls, so in that respect, I suppose there's some truth to the notion. If more conservatives vote, more conservatives will be elected, and more conservative ideas will become law. I would think that that would mean the nation would lean more towards the conservative end. But if everyone voted, I think we'd see more liberals getting the vote.

It's a belief that business leaders would prefer, but it is likely based on surveys that ask people how they identify themselves: conservative or liberal, without delving a little further into what the common people understand as "conservative" or "liberal." The last, being especially crucial, because the word "liberal" has been so relentlessly demonized over the last 30 years in American rightwing politics and media.

Polls do more than ask if people identify themselves as conservative or liberal. They ask questions that show which way people lean without identifying the choices as liberal or conservative. I do agree that the term "liberal" has been demonized over the years, though; polls have shown that many people who identify themselves as conservative leaning actually are liberal leaning according to their responses to the questions.

Edited April 25, 2011 by American Woman

[netochka]

(especially idiots who support Conservative plans to lower corporate tax rates) are in a similar situation of ignorance of our growing inequality.

And if raised, you'll be crying for those lower corporate tax rates again when unemployment rises because those corporations moved offshore to greener pastures.

[Guest American Woman]

And if raised, you'll be crying for those lower corporate tax rates again when unemployment rises because those corporations moved offshore to greener pastures.

You raise a valid point. I read a post a while ago about how Michigan's governor wants to lower business taxes, and it was stated as a criticism. Michigan needs businesses; the governor is trying to attract them so that more people have jobs. Ultimately, having a job and a paycheck is preferable to paying slightly lower taxes but having no paycheck.

[maple_leafs182]

I would say it depends on how you define conservative.

If you look at someone like Ron Paul who is a conservative, he believes the reason why there is a growing income gap between the rich and the poor is because of fiat money. The inflation from the fiat system is a hidden tax on the people, it directly transfer the wealth of the the poor to the rich.

Low taxes right now is a good thing for the economy, you want the money to stay in the private sector. Giving the money to the government to spend it isn't a good thing. Governments don't create wealth, they consume it. We need to rely on the private sector sector to create wealth and grow the economy.

The problem with the Conservative party is they act as if the welfare programs that the other parties want are too costly yet they don't look at how much our foreign policy costs and try to cut spending there.

[Pliny]

So, let's take a closer look about how conservative Americans are about wealth distribution. The following study finds that the majority of Americans would prefer a more equal wealth distribution of nations such as Sweden, compared to what they have now -- growing poverty, disappearing middle class, and a top ruling class that has doubled, or tripled their wealth over the last 20 years.

Could it be much simpler, WIP? Could it be that Americans would like to see everyone making a decent living with ono poverty?

What an idiotic study!! What country has citizens that want to see wealth concentrated in the hands of a few? Americans too wish to see everyone succeed. They would like to see economic equity but they live in reality and know there is going to be some deadwood to carry. Those who can't work and those who won't. There is no use in having government swell the ranks of those who won't in the name of equity.

[Pliny]

I would say it depends on how you define conservative.

If you look at someone like Ron Paul who is a conservative, he believes the reason why there is a growing income gap between the rich and the poor is because of fiat money. The inflation from the fiat system is a hidden tax on the people, it directly transfer the wealth of the the poor to the rich.

Low taxes right now is a good thing for the economy, you want the money to stay in the private sector. Giving the money to the government to spend it isn't a good thing. Governments don't create wealth, they consume it. We need to rely on the private sector sector to create wealth and grow the economy.

The problem with the Conservative party is they act as if the welfare programs that the other parties want are too costly yet they don't look at how much our foreign policy costs and try to cut spending there.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a conservative. Perhaps as an individual he holds conservative values but a conservative is not really against a fiat currency. As for small government, as Paul advocates, even though that is the claim of Conservatism it has never been the reality.

Obama made a slip last week in claiming the GOP was nickeling and diming him on the budget. Yet he was so proud to announce it was the largest budget cut in history. Well, that only points to the fact that he is disingenuous as regards the debt and the deficit. Harry Reid, after a mere 38 billion in cuts to over a trillion dollar budget, made it appear like it was the most difficult and saddest thing he had ever done in his political career. I think Michelle Bachman had it right that Reid and Obama were laughing through their hat at Boehner. Quoting Obama, "....nickeling and diming us on the budget. What do they think we are? Stupid! Nyuk! Nyuk!"

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a conservative. Perhaps as an individual he holds conservative values but a conservative is not really against a fiat currency. As for small government, as Paul advocates, even though that is the claim of Conservatism it has never been the reality.

He is a self proclaimed libertarian conservative, he has both conservative and libertarian views.

[WIP]

Sure...why not, but you had better understand more than just marginal tax rates. JFK's tax cuts linger as very effective "propaganda" after all these years. Income equality is your socialist objective, not conservative America's. Why doesn't your oppressed worker class include Chinese labor?

Now, once again...tell me why your conservative America wants income distributions similar to Sweden? Could it be that the average American is more socialist than they realize?

[WIP]

You picked out one issue that isn't in the forefront of people's minds. Trust me, people's views on income are a small part of what distinguishes conservative from liberal. Size and scope of government, views on crime, views on foreign policy and (unfortunately since I'm not a so-con) views on social issues bulk far larger. On all of those matters the U.S. is a center-right country.

I'm focusing on the conservative economic ideas...which I believe have failed when applied, and as mentioned to B.C., the appeal to conservative social issues has motivated many people to vote against their economic interests...the book "What's The Matter With Kansas" comes to mind, as a good analysis of the problem.

Also, when people learn more about the sociological implications of rising disparities in income, they will see how every social issue, from crime rates and incarceration, physical and mental health, education level and upward mobility, are much better in more equal societies such as Japan, Sweden or Norway; and much worse in the less equal societies - US, the UK, Portugal, and New Zealand. Increasing economic growth does not improve these social indexes if the gaps in income remain or get worse. And, it's not important what the method is for achieving equality -- it can be done through higher progressive tax rates as in Sweden; or the same effects have been achieved in Japan, where income taxes are lower, but has less disparity in pay scales. The Equality Trust collated by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

Perhaps many Americans don't even realize that their country has become as unequal as many third world nations, even though the rich all live now behind high walls of gated communities.

Edited April 27, 2011 by WIP

[WIP]

You raise a valid point. I read a post a while ago about how Michigan's governor wants to lower business taxes, and it was stated as a criticism. Michigan needs businesses; the governor is trying to attract them so that more people have jobs. Ultimately, having a job and a paycheck is preferable to paying slightly lower taxes but having no paycheck.

The same race to the bottom that has driven wages down on an international level in the new era of Globalization, has been going on for decades by businesses who pit one state or city against another to see who will offer the most goodies: sales tax holidays, tax loopholes, zero interest loans, corporate tax breaks, and union-busting so-called right-to-work laws. And what has it achieved, except to turn states like Michigan....one of the wealthiest states back when my uncles were working at the GM and Cadillac plants, into something on par with Mexico.

Now, maybe this is why Snyder's grovelling is being criticized by some:

Business Leaders for Michigan President Doug Rothwell told the Detroit News that swapping the MBT for a 6 percent corporate income tax would put Michigan “in the top 15 states in terms of lowest business taxes.”

But the Michigan Manufacturers Association said many of its members could be hit with a tax increase under Snyder’s plan to reform business taxes

. That’s because the corporate income tax would eliminate a 35 percent credit against the personal property tax in the MBT, which raises about $1 billion a year for local communities.

http://michigantruthsquad.com/snyders-proposed-budget-analysis/#21

So what kind of business is Snyder trying to reward with his tax plan? Obviously not manufacturing, which would be the kind of business that would provide the best spin-off effects for surrounding business. http://michigantruthsquad.com/snyders-proposed-budget-analysis/#8

Other highlights mentioned in the analysis of the State Budget include 18% cuts to the state's public universities, and a $470 cut per student in K through 12 public school funding. Any business that is thinking about relocating to Michigan, will not be lured in lured in with the expectation of finding a highly educated workforce! Michigan will just be full of sweatshops if anything.

[Pliny]

He is a self proclaimed libertarian conservative, he has both conservative and libertarian views.

He's a Libertarian first and more aligned with Conservatives. Economically, he stands alone and separate from Conservatives. In the sense conservatives are supposed to be about small government, or so they say, he is conservative.

[Pliny]

I'm focusing on the conservative economic ideas...which I believe have failed when applied, and as mentioned to B.C., the appeal to conservative social issues has motivated many people to vote against their economic interests...the book "What's The Matter With Kansas" comes to mind, as a good analysis of the problem.

Also, when people learn more about the sociological implications of rising disparities in income, they will see how every social issue, from crime rates and incarceration, physical and mental health, education level and upward mobility, are much better in more equal societies such as Japan, Sweden or Norway; and much worse in the less equal societies - US, the UK, Portugal, and New Zealand. Increasing economic growth does not improve these social indexes if the gaps in income remain or get worse. And, it's not important what the method is for achieving equality -- it can be done through higher progressive tax rates as in Sweden; or the same effects have been achieved in Japan, where income taxes are lower, but has less disparity in pay scales. The Equality Trust collated by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

Perhaps many Americans don't even realize that their country has become as unequal as many third world nations, even though the rich all live now behind high walls of gated communities.

Japan is included in the same class as Sweden and Norway, now? I have never seen that alignment before.

I believe that government debt and deficit spending with commitments to unfunded future liabilities is the biggest problem, not "conservative economic" ideas. Sorry but in the long run all those social ponzi schemes eventually bankrupt a nation. A few may initially benefit from them but they eventually collapse and even so-called conservative economic ideas won't save them - especially when it is impossible to get serious spending cuts because of entitlements that turn into "rights" - rights that must be funded by someone.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Perhaps many Americans don't even realize that their country has become as unequal as many third world nations, even though the rich all live now behind high walls of gated communities.

I'm not sure why this is stated in the present tense given the actual history of America, rise (and fall) of the middle class, and continued immigration bases at all economic classes. America has such disparities by definition....there will be winners, losers, and also rans. The rich do not all live behind the walls of gated communities, but many choose to do so. Are there no gated communities in Canada?

Edited April 27, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

..... A few may initially benefit from them but they eventually collapse and even so-called conservative economic ideas won't save them - especially when it is impossible to get serious spending cuts because of entitlements that turn into "rights" - rights that must be funded by someone.

Agreed...the political process is now beholden not so much to big corporate interests, but to an entrenched entitlement mentality that will consume itself if not changed. Touting Sweden as the model answer only continues such folly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now, once again...tell me why your conservative America wants income distributions similar to Sweden? Could it be that the average American is more socialist than they realize?

No.....you are projecting a monolithic opinion that does not match observed behavior. What is an average American? How many emigrate to Sweden each year?