July 19, 2005

TRYING HARDER (via Robert Schwartz):

Rich Republicans?: Not yet. The red states are still number two, and working hard for a living. (Jerry Bowyer, 7/11/05, National Review)

Recently the Bureau of Economic Analysis released two reports which shed a lot of light on what’s really going on in American politics. The reports show beyond question that the states that went for George W. Bush in the last election are considerably poorer than the ones that went for Kerry. The notion that the GOP is the party of the rich simply doesn’t match the economic reality.

States with the highest per capita income trend Democrat; the states with the lowest per capita income trend Republican. The top ten “blue states,” for example, had an average per capita personal income of $36,327, which is 20 percent higher than the top ten “red states,” which had an average of $30,275.

Northeastern states, which make up the geographical heart of liberalism, are considerably wealthier than the upstart Sunbelt states, and that’s just by the measure of personal income. The Northeast states also boast many more generations of accumulated financial capital than their Sunbelt cousins. In other words, income statements and balance sheets in the Northeast states reveal much richer populations.

These realities have led the Left to formulate an appearance-saving theory modeled on the book What’s the Matter with Kansas?, by Thomas Frank. In the Left’s view, scary pictures of men holding hands have led red-staters to commit economic suicide by voting Republican.

But if the GOP is not the party of the rich, is it the party of the poor? No. Increasingly, and counter to the Kansas theory, it’s becoming clear that the GOP is the party of the aspiring.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 19, 2005 12:01 AM
Comments for this post are closed.