Walker wrote: ↑Thu Nov 26, 2020 6:36 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:49 am
That those born with wealth will have a greater tendency to adopt Conservative politics because they believe it is 'fair' to CONSERVE their fortune inherited to them. Those born poor or into some genetic race of less popular appeal, will tend to adopt Progressive politics because PROGRESS (change) is needed to redistribute
fairness to those in need.
I followed your reasoning for the rest of your posting, this is the last paragraph. While I agree that some people will adopt Progressive policies in the hopes of fairness of opportunity, I think that’s just because of a
fearful personality.
??
Fearful personality? IF this relates at all to the left, it would only be related to the fear of real hunger and suffering at the bottom end of the economic spectra. But I assure you that the fear factor of those WITH power is more prevalent.
The politics are defined by people's ACTUAL inheritance factors, not some property of one's magical will power. I've lived in a wide spectra of conditions and know that the conservatives are ignorant of their own fortunes of mere birth, whether it be of one's genetic inheritance or the accidental environment of where they were born. No doubt you overlook the little things that add up to contribute to your beneficial environment. Trivialized factors are such things as whether your parents were together, your parent's capacity to give things like allowances while growning up, whether you get a car BEFORE you are 20 years old, your race, and place of birth. If such factors were NOT the case, we could not ever witness discrete 'ghettos' of large populations of people, often concentrated of specific race, and certainly wealth, isolation, parental disfunction associated with wealth, etc.
Note that I'm a militiary brat and travelled all over with unusual cross conditions of both benefits associated with wealth and struggle associated with poverty. I've known people from all sides of the political spectra and have been able to observe the distinctions that directly associate one's luck of accidental conditions of place in birth to one's successes with MORE prevalence than the nature of those who were poor AND struggle hard to get ahead with SINCERE efforts.
I get tired of hearing this crap by spoiled conservatives who think that their own successes were EARNED with more integrity and delusion of mind but that those who lacked success were presumed to have EARNED their failures (as though they all begun rich and happy but lost it all. You REQUIRE the world to treat you fair up front to derive any attitude of hope. The poor only have to fuck up once to be permanently be barred from success while the richer or more comfortable middle classes can fuck up 100 times and still have family welfare to take care of them. Yeah, home supports ARE 'welfare' too!
Add to that corporate law which permits one to be limited to losses to their investment while at the opposite side of power, the poorer are indebted by their parent's and whole communities debts without such protections.
So, ...
And this is completely understandable. Guaranteed income is attractive.
You are not implying social services by government are 'guaranteed' to the poor are you? The 'taxpayer' right demand governments FIRST sacrifice from the poor because they believe poverty is earned or some penalty by God for BEING 'evil' in heart. This is disgusting discrimination!
Quite often the Progressive policies do what churches and families and charities used to do, and that is help newcomers. They are helping-hand policies. Once their feet are on the ground the ambitious are conservative, because unless they are government glandhanders and influence peddlers, conservative values fuel the entrepreneurial spirit that I think is inherent in folks, but gets squashed.
Right-wingers favor wealthy immigrants unless they can get them to work for them for less than they themselves would for things they themselves wouldn't do. They favor poor immigrants if they serve to populate higher demand in competition so that they can profit from what they don't pay them...and preferably 'illegal' so as to be able to have something on them for better control and profit. They aslo prefer that churches serve the social welfare/services because they aren't obliged to contribute (something that the poorer members tend to do in a higher per-capita way.
As to the side of the Progressives, these will still tend to be conservatives who just lack the present power and who do the major funding (given the poor cannot afford to compete for the power to select their leaders and platform decisions.) Then those running the Progressive side tend to favor 'cultural' nationalism and see the PLURALITY as the smallest minority, not the actual individuals who suffer. They tend to define things like poverty in terms of cultural pluralism because it is those groups who actually unionize with the monetary power to control those parties. The rich on the left tend to be those with some more compassion then their counterparts on the right (usually with their own experience of rising from hard times, good obseration skills, education, and better IQ). But they then tend to still favor 'cultural' laws which only contribute to isolating people based on superficial class distinctions.
All in all, the poor are still more representable by the left for simply the fact THAT there lies the majority of the cults of which the right maintains only a stronger minority based on the same nationalitic beliefs. As such, the poor at least are 'covered' more extensively on the left. The poor who happen to have dominant racial identity on the right will tend to at least be hired to better entry level positions BY those of the same whereas the same on the left won't even get the offers without excessive diminished benefits.
The immigrants in general succeed better because they are 'new' and have social supports among their own, have proven relative hope for simply getting to a new and better country and lack the same issues of those who are second or more generations.
In Washington DC there is an avenue that runs perpendicular through the mall between the Capitol building and the Washington Monument. Food trucks line the curb bumper to bumper. Each truck has one person outside and at least one person inside. Most of them specialize in different ethnic foods. There’s also others with burgers and fries, ice cream and hot dogs. The man outside each truck tries to interest you in the food, coax you in off the sidewalk without being obnoxious. The trucks are covered with pictures of the food, not very good pictures. If you want to buy some, you place your order at the side window of the truck, the woman inside fixes your food and takes your money. All the food is very good and with all those trucks there is a big selection of world food-cart cuisine.
Pure capitalism.
I lived there in my early years. I know that back then (Bicentenial era of the 70s) I don't think that the nature of being the capital city of the stongest home of capitialism is going to NOT likely have its ability to fail on the mall like they might elsewhere. They still have had issues of those who struggle due to the higher costs of living. They certianly wouldn't be normal representatives of those benefitting from the Mall. It is an excellent place for tourism, has the Smithsonian Institute museums, monuments, and lots of expensive hotels that the poorer would not be inhabiting in its core.
I think it runs in the veins of many and is the natural inclination of the fearless, or at least those who like the adrenaline energy and alertness of reality that comes from taking chances with their skills on the open market, living on the edge. The kind of fairness these people like is unrestricted opportunity. I think this is natural in all people, opportunity for a life that rewards their best efforts and skills without some impersonal government determining their ceiling of opportunity.
The qualities of people's literal aptitudes and attitudes are equal across class and wealth distinctions. But the property that distinguishes them relate only to their inherent facotrs mostly. As such, the distribution of people to be 'fearless', capitalistic, OR communistic beliefs are also equal. They just differ on actual outcomes and directly impact on their differences of approach. And we are all greedy to take from those that are not our own as well as loving and compationate for those OF our own.
The only assured factor that distinguishes the likelihood of success or failure most universal is their inheritance (and 'heritage') factors. All other factors excused by any political persuasion is deluded to some degree. And this is true of all times and places.
