I'm not sure anyone literally thinks this; in fact I think conservatives are likelier to say that accidents of biology play a role in what kind of chance you get (but probably less likely to say that about accidents of class). However, some more limited version of this highlighting how much easier things are today relative to the past is true; for example in the modern United States if you do not make certain seemingly easily avoidable mistakes, it is basically certain that you will not live in poverty (linked to Google search results just to demonstrate this is so often repeated). Your chances really are much better today.
One big reason I pushed back against conservatives in regards to their views that everyone has equal opportunities is because of biological reasons. The Southern United States has also virtually no economic mobility.
Poor people do have it easier in the United States compared to most of the world, but that does not mean we should dismiss their hardships. Also needs in the United States are different. In most of this country, you need a vehicle.
But it is difficult to end up in extreme poverty in the United States. It usually either through a mental condition or complete incompetence and major mistakes.
That being said, I find conservatives very unforgiving of mistakes while liberals will give more benefit of the doubt.
Probably a mixture of numerous recent well-publicized scientific failures (like
the replication crisis in psychology, sociology, and medicine, or, of great interest to me,
the failure of the leading paradigm in genetics from 1995-2010, or
the fact that contemporary scientific standards of proof are weak enough to allow a field studying psychic powers to exist) and an assumption that government functionaries, or ideological progressives, are incentivized to come up with theories that would support greater powers given to government, since most proposals to fight climate change revolve around heavy regulation of commonly used technologies, like cars or agricultural products.
Understanding that climate change is real
even though much of science is fake, and you are right to be skeptical about it, takes some level of subtlety and sophistication.
This I can understand the most.. as my views on Covid were well known. If we followed the science on covid, kids would still be virtual learning and there would still be mass unemployment and no one ever leaving their house.
However, it is anti science to assume the follow
-Children are high risk for covid.
-Children do not need social development.
-Vaccines would end the coronavirus. Remember this is a CORONAVIRUS.
-We could eradicate covid.
-There are no negative trade offs to covid measures.
Another reason I pushed back on the left on covid measures was because I was afraid it would increase the anti-intellectualism and anti-science side of the GOP.
But still... the science is clear the Western United States needs to conserve water. But you know who the people who have the lushest lawns always are? Republicans!
It is literally why Utah has the worst record on water conservation in the west.
Dunno; this one might make sense in certain countries (like Nordic nations?) where immigrants really do disproportionately commit crimes or depend on welfare, but that isn't true in the United States. Some people are also very protective of their country's culture, but again in the US it's generally the case that immigrants assimilate pretty well.
Congratulations, you explain exactly why I am so pro-immigrant.
And contrary to popular belief, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE INELIGIBLE FOR WELFARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think lots of people object to the racialized attitude that things are presented in here; many other ethnic groups have similar histories of oppression (consider the discrimination Asian-Americans faced in the late 19th century, or Jews who fled the Holocaust, etc. etc.; in my ancestors' country, Russia, slavery wasn't abolished until 1861, or 4 years before the end of the American Civil War) but better performance among many economic metrics, and especially among immigrant groups there's resentment that the black community has been in the US for centuries but has still not become rich in spite of the massive advantage that comes from 'being in the US'. On top of this, among ideological conservatives you see a push for judging individuals separately, so the framing that there is a problem unique to 'the black community', rather than certain black individuals, is one that there is a strong instinct to reject.
Thing is.. white people FEAR black people more than other minorities. Should they? Absolutely not. When I lived in St. Louis, did I avoid black areas? Absolutely not. But I know most whites fear blacks, which contributes to their lower economic success.
Look at Prince George's County, Maryland and African Americans in Nova.. they are just fine.. but they don't live in a society that fears them.
Asians and Hispanics were never enslaved here. It is easier for latinos to assimilate.
I'm not sure this is a common attitude among conservatives. More generally, I think the usual ideological conservative picture of how policy can lead to a better society is something along the lines of
1) less government control leading to more enterprise/opportunity (especially by repealing regulations, but also by lowering taxes and spending); there is lots of empirical evidence that this works
2) leading to a richer society across the board (ditto)
3) leading to everyone having a better standard-of-living through trickle-down (I think there is substantial empirical evidence that this works, but of course it is very controversial)
(I think given referendum results that some version of this is believed by an outright majority of the American public, but especially point 3 is actually moderately fringey in other parts of the First World). If you don't think trickle-down works, then it's possible for you to interpret points 1 and 2 as rich people trying to set up a society that works better for them, though given that right and left in the US aren't particularly tied to income or wealth I think this idea is a real stretch.
Thank you for explaining that, but I am certainly not a trickle down person and believe the government has a responsible to protect the most vulnerable in society.
I can't imagine that people like this go into politics -- surely there are better-paying opportunities elsewhere. People who go into politics really do care for others and want to change society, even if often (usually?) an outside observer would see those changes as mostly negative.
I care about society as a whole and other people. Conservatives will tend to care for themselves and have a "f everyone else" atitude.
I've often written about this, but it's amazing how well-sorted the US population is becoming, and how much of the sorting seems to happen in subconscious or non-obvious ways. I've lived basically my whole life in an urban area, went to a decently liberal university for undergrad and then a very liberal one for law school, and then went into tech, and I've absolutely never had a problem having a social group consisting mostly of right-libertarians. I get approached (this has happened, like, a high-single-digit number of times) by people at parties wanting to tell me about Ayn Rand.
If not for, like, being a polling nerd I think I would assume that maybe, like, 60-80% of society is right-libertarians. But, no, the answer is that something in my presentation just selects for these people. I think a phenomenon like this goes for most people, and you have to be very interested in society as a whole to notice that you (yes, you) invariably live in some kind of bubble.
People in Nova live in a bubble I admit. Part of the reason they are so Democratic is because they are pretty damn insulated from the worst of Democratic policies. It is a low crime area, they didn't have to deal with extreme covid restrictions day to day unless they lived in DC, and liberal policies will generally not impact them in any negative way. Also the GOP will usually campaign on shrinking the federal government.. that would impact them indirectly at very least.
I have seen conservatives propose economic policies like just within the last few days. Not here though.
1) Flat percentage income tax- Nope not buying it. It literally is a give away to the rich. Especially when you consider the fact the first 100.00 to a poor person has a lot more value than to a rich person.
2) Flat dollar income tax even if it exceeds a persons income- That is a non starter. I do not even need to explain why.
3) End all social programs- As someone who has seen thugs trade food stamps for drugs, I can kind of understand the sentiment but we are not some third world country. There has to be a level of safety here. The consequences of no safety net would be to dire.
And I am someone who thought the covid relief was way over board, feels like minimum wage should be quite low (like around 12.00ish), and is a huge free marketer and free trader.
