“The quality of a village is measured by the poorest, not the richest members’ is one description of one ethos.
You may very well be right about that. Every group has their own unique values. And Asians cannot be neatly clumped into one vast group so neatly. Here in Southern CA we have many diffrent Asian ethnicities: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Indian, Vietnamese, Filipino, Cambodian, etc..-—all have diffrent values, traditions, and religious affiliations.
One thing in general has changed: In years past, a person’s socio-economic-status-—SES-— as well as family influence basically determined one’s party affiliation. These days, regular church attendence (with the exception of blacks and hispanics-—and now Asians too) is much better indicator of party preference than SES.
To clarify- I am answering the question, not making the case, but...
All I am saying is this: there is a basic belief of conservatism that the greatest good for the greatest number comes from the greatest economic liberty. Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedman, all argue that a system that allows for both billionaires and people in extreme poverty yields overall better results than one in which there is much less of a variation between the richest and poorest. This is not a cultural universal. One can rant and rail about “redistribution of wealth” and equate that with “socialism”, but a lot of cultures around the world don’t see that as an absolute inherent evil that is the start of an inevitable slippery slope towards totalitarianism.
To pretend otherwise is to continue scratching one’s head as to why honest, educated and hardworking people sometimes do not vote Republican. As a preacher I know said “do we really need billionairs while other people are living under a bridge with untreated mental illnesses?”