| « More than bare shelves | Gene Expression Front Page | How do you define what is "Islamic," and other questions » | |
|
February 02, 2004
Through the Looking Glass
Godless posed the question of whether people are rational voters in this post. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that voter's ideology, in addition to their rationality, seems to be confused. This post in the NY Times reports on the Tax Foundation's Special Report on Tax Burdens and Expenditures By State. Here is the news release. The highlights as explained in the NY TImes are that: The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states — while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states. If the ideology of each party is what sells, yet the reality on the ground is diametrically opposite of the ideology, then on what basis do people make their decisions? Are fiscal concerns the least important of political identifiers? What does it really mean to be a Republican or a Democrat today?
Posted by TangoMan at
06:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|