It all boils down to media and colleges. For decades we placed our confidence upon colleges and education as a path for our kids. Gramsci knew it, and its no wonder why he stressed the importance of starting indoctrination not on Kindergarten, or Trade School, but precisely at those very high-brow intellectual circles.
Then we have the media, which being also heavily contaminated, does everything it can to portray the GOP as the party of the uneducated, of the stupid, of the anti-science, of the angry old white racist man.
These two things don't explain it all, however. There's a third factor. See, though not an American, I'm a GOP supporter. I agree with Reps far more than I do with Dems. If I was American, I'd be a registered Republican. And unfortunately, the GOP not only has had its reputation tarnished by the enemy. Its been tarnishing itself since the rise of the Christian Right. Goldwater warned you, and apparently, you gave the poor man little attention. Its not about being pro-life. I'm a pro-life too, even though I also happen to be an atheist. Its not about the drugs. William Buckley Jr. was a proponent of decriminalising the herb. Its not about gay marriage, which I oppose simply because I am totally against Civil Marriage at all, even though its something I'd easily compromise.
Its about how you present yourselves.
Wait, what the hell are you talking about with college and the media? Education doesn't have much effect on voting patters, except on the extreme ends of the education spectrum.
Are you saying that colleges "indoctrinate" people to be liberal and vote Democrat?
And the media doesn't have to "portray" the GOP as what you said; Republican politicians do it just fine by themselves. The media just reports on it.
On the short term, it doesn't. On the long term, however, it does. Just look at how professors profess liberal ideologies so strongly. By teaching this to kids.Were that so, then the kids born in the 1960s and 1970s, whose professors went through the radicalizing trends of the 1960s, would be the most politically-liberal of all voters. They are not. They reacted to the stale and (by then) irrelevant Leftism of '60s radicals by voting heavily for Reagan and both Bushes.
It's impossible to discuss much of American history -- at least as late as the Civil War -- from a Left-Right viewpoint unless one introduces anachronisms. States generally select the textbooks, and one of those States is right-wing Texas. Schoolbooks too left-wing to pass the Texas board lose a huge market. To fit Texas those books must never criticize "free enterprise" even by calling it "capitalism".
As for geography classes... One with which I am familiar with as a substitute teacher is a thinly-disguised course in remedial reading. Social studies? In general they treat 'socialism' as a bad idea. That said, K-12 education is largely for teaching the basics.
What is left-wing in Hollywood is its talent, particularly in screen actors and scriptwriters. Maybe that is because a disproportionate part of that talent is Jewish. No complaint there; the culture that I am from is largely incompetent in entertaining people. But at that one largely discusses entertainment whose didactic purposes are usually well concealed -- if there is such a purpose. But some right-wingers (Frederic March, John Wayne, Walter Brennan, Jimmy Stewart, Bob Hope, RONALD REAGAN, Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood) have done well in Hollywood -- at least as screen actors.
Action-adventure movies, police dramas, war flicks, and westerns are generally conservative in their ethos; the only "left" tendency in something like
Raiders of the Lost Ark is disdain for Nazism. OK. Nazis will always be fair game; admit it: you loved the scene in which the Ark was opened and Nazi brutes died in some of the most horrific ways possible. Melting? Decaying in place? When there's a sequel to the series involving Indiana Jones' grandson (maybe granddaughter) seeking the stolen Amber Room (the Russians still want it back!) in archeologically-rich Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the thugs who die horribly will be Ba'athist brutes. It's hard to place Saddam Hussein on the Left-Right continuum. I assure you -- you will be delighted as those thugs die in ways that you will find delightful to your sensibilities.
The entertainment media are not creating any cult of personality to fit Barack Obama. As an Obama supporter, I consider that a very good thing.
But that is Hollywood. Media includes pop music. If it were so left-wing you would see plentiful successors of Bob Dylan. I see mostly wish fulfillment, much of it "pimp fantasy", objectionable not so much for politics as for intellectual and moral emptiness. Rap may be full of rage, but aside from antipathy to cops doing their legitimate jobs (am I a conservative for hating drugs? I think not) they are apolitical. Country music offers numerous right-wing themes. Jazz and folk probably have a left-leaning clientele. Classical? A bit to the right of the jazz and folk audiences, maybe -- but it's hard to place a taste in music on the left-right continuum.
Books? I can't read them all. You tell me if you see any political agenda in the
Harry Potter series.
Probably more expenditures of money go into sports than anything else, and perhaps because more people watch televised sporting events than anything else. It's safe to say that sports are an escape from politics.
OK -- News. Does anyone still believe that FoX News is without an agenda? If it is as it is said, "the most watched, the most trusted name in news"... does that say that American media are left-wing? CNN has much fluff, but it seems to go with whoever is winning at the time. Anyone who thinks that the thirty-minute evening news on ABC, CBS, or NBC can be anything more than a superficial survey of events is a fool.