[nathanbedford]

Either the data is flawed or distinguishing between conservative and liberal predilection does not predict actual voting.

It is not inconceivable the data is flawed but we now have two studies and, even if the data is exaggerated toward the conclusion stated, it is nevertheless undeniable that there is a gross discrepancy between these data in the blue state/red state demarcation line. Why do people not vote their philosophical beliefs?

The author implies the following explanation:

If my analysis is right, then that would explain Democrat hysteria over the town hall meetings in America as the revelation that the Left is just a small minority of Americans who have insinuated themselves into the chokepoints of information, education, entertainment, and policy in American society.

I infer from this that the author is suggesting that the system is somehow distorted by Democrats who have taken over the "chokepoints of information" and somehow prevented the electorate from working its will. I have an instinctive negative reaction to any theory that smacks of conspiracy. Yet I agree with the idea that liberals do dominate the chokepoints of information, education, entertainment and policy in American society." Living in Europe, I see the domination here to be generic and not just isolated to chokepoints. I do not like conspiracy theories, yet it is undeniable that many a voter enters the polling booths a conservative and emerges a Democrat. So there is clearly some sort of a disconnect.

It might not be a conspiracy at all, it might be something so simple as the average voter simply voting his perceived interests which he identifies with the Democrats' program. For example, many elderly are conservative but just flat will not vote for any candidate who does not support their Social Security. The Democrats have done a marvelous job for generations demonizing Republicans as thieves of Social Security. It took Ronald Reagan to bring union members to see, at least for a season, their true as opposed to perceived interests. It might be nice to subscribe to the abstract ideal of limited government, but many a single mother is far more interested in feeding her children.

Americans pride themselves in their pragmatism. It is human nature to vote one's self-interest and rationalize away the philosophical inconsistencies. The Democrats are masters at pandering to the interests of one special interest group after another. They do not say to the elderly, throw away your lifelong beliefs in limited government and we will reward you with healthcare, they change the vocabulary, obscure the issue, and enable the rationalization.

In this process, Democrats are greatly aided by the intensity factor. That is, if an earmark builds an unneeded bikepath in a congressional district the benefit is focused but the cost is spread across the entire nation. No one feels the pain of this particular insult but they do understand that Senator Byrd is helping them pave every square inch of West Virginia.

I am not sure that the way to fight this is to stand against the Democrats parceling out goodies to focused and motivated groups with platitudes of conservative truths. The Democrats have been providing Americans with the vocabulary to rationalize away these truths for generations. The people will not say "I'm voting against my heritage and my grandchildren knowingly because I want to stick my snout in the public trough now," they will say, "I have paid my share into Social Security and I'm only getting back my contribution." In fact, the recipient will be getting back on average multiple times his contribution. But that does not matter, what matters is that the voter has been supplied the rationalization he needs to abandon conservative principles.

In Europe there are no conservative principles there is only a resort to ad hoc solutions to problems. The best way to expose this difference between America and Europe is to talk to my German neighbors about the right to bear arms. They see no philosophical undergirding for the right to bear arms. It does not matter to them that piece of paper assures us of that right in America. They want a pragmatic solution to violence and they think that denial of the right to bear arms provide that security. The matter of philosophical right does not enter into the equation. They need the evidence of only one massacre in one school to decide the philosophical issue.

In America, the Democrats have been so artful in providing ad hoc solutions to real or imagined problems that we have now gotten to the point where it is rare indeed when a solution which benefits intensely one group will be denied because it is ultra vires the Constitution. We simply don't think that way very much anymore. Even today, the argument over nationalized healthcare is not primarily a constitutional but a pragmatic argument. The right does not emphasize that to nationalize healthcare is unconstitutional, but argues that it is impracticable, costly, unfair, and, yes, big government. But I believe that the seniors in the town hall meetings are not primarily motivated by their love of small government but by their love of their Medicare entitlements.

That is not to say that there are not transcendental moments in history when an issue crystallizes a philosophy. The healthcare issue is coming very close to that now. Cap And Trade, perhaps as mortally dangerous to our economy as healthcare, has not aroused the people to the same degree. I believe that they simply do not see their ox being gored by Cap and Trade. But healthcare is a matter of intense personal interest as opposed to rhetorical, conservative notions of good and constitutional governance.

Will self-interest continue to trump patriotism as the advancing blue line the inexorable encroaches more and more of the map of America?

[Ciexyz]

Most interesting analysis. I agree, self interest will make us rationalize any position. For me, I have a health care benefit that I do not wish to lose under any new system. I am a member of Obama and Congress’ health care plan, the FEHBP, the Federal Employee’s Health Benefit Program. I worked for it, I was entitled to take it into retirement, and I damn sure do not want my plan reduced to some cheap welfare plan for which they raise costs and reduce my benefits. Why should I not feel this way. Why should I have to apologize for this benefit that I earned from my working career.

[roamer_1]

I disagree nathanbedford. The last election was the Republicans’ to lose, and lose it they did. That is the entire story.

The Republican Party has been shedding Conservatives at a furious rate, ever since Reagan, especially (exponentially) since 2004, and now the majority stand outside of the party. That should tell you volumes.

Look at what an average Conservative family should have produced demographically (in voters)since 1980, and compare that to the numbers the Republicans have been able to garner. Conservatives are doing what they always do - They are sitting it out, and have been in larger numbers all along.

The “vote for us because we’re better than Democrats” shtick has worn thin. Boogey-man tactics will not suffice. Blame-shifting and phony promises will not do.

Put up a “Contract with America” espousing actual Conservatism, lead by actual Conservatives and watch how fast the tables turn.

[jwparkerjr]

I wrestled with the same nagging apparent disconnect for years. Then I had one of those ‘eureka’ moments of something happening that explained a lot to me. None of which made sense, but at least I had some insight.

My father-in-law was a retired Army officer. And I mean the old fashioned army, the army of WWII and Korea. He spent time in a German POW camp, was on the staff of the base commander at several large posts. He got up every morning of his retired life and raised a flag on a flag pole he had put in his front yard. He would travel hundreds of miles to attend reunions of his old army units. He lived a regimented life that would do any old school army person proud. So far so good.

I had always just assumed, uh oh, he would consider Bill Clinton an enemy to everything he had fought for and believe in all his life. Clinton, who was a draft dodger, who had said in writing that he loathed the military, etc. Slam dunk Bush voter, no? But he was a Catholic from a suburb of Boston, came from a long line of Democrats and liberals and that outweighed even his army experience. Damned if he didn't vote TWICE for Clinton! Turns out his raising trumped his training.

I know this does nothing to explain much of anything, but it helps me to understand how Obama got elected.

[palmer]

In this process, Democrats are greatly aided by the intensity factor. That is, if an earmark builds an unneeded bikepath in a congressional district the benefit is focused but the cost is spread across the entire nation. No one feels the pain of this particular insult but they do understand that Senator Byrd is helping them pave every square inch of West Virginia.

Any Democratic constituent guilt over the paving of the planet will be assuaged by raising electric rates on evil businesses via cap and trade. One small correction though, Byrd's projects are mostly to tear down entire mountains to pave a small strip and plant tall fescue on the rest. But that is just a quibble about your otherwise excellent post.

[FirstFlaBn]

Yours is the best analysis I’ve seen. You must be pretty smart seeing as how you have the good sense to agree with me! Seriously, I have been thinking in the same terms, though not as clearly stated. Thanks for filling in the gaps for me.

How many self-identified conservatives oppose on philosophical grounds a new program that benefits them directly? And, then, of course, the seduction becomes complete when once they have it, it becomes a right to be angrily protected.

At least one time in my life I rejected a benefit on philosophical grounds - I returned to college in my 40s and even though I qualified for student aid I consciously chose not to take it. I’m no hero for so doing, but how many conservatives participated in cash for clunkers?

[wbarmy]

I tend to agree with several of the other posters. Obama was portrayed as a moderate. This allowed a large group of normally conservative people to convince themselves that Obama couldn't be as bad as some commentators were portraying him. Plus the fact that by the time the media was finished, there wasn't an actual lot of difference between Obama’s positions and McCain's.