I can see being more liberal when there is less inequality since people have a greater tendency to be more generous. The idea that those who are poorer tend to reject government intervention is suprising. However, most people tend to distrust government so maybe they think government will take rather than give.

“We broke down pubic opinion by income group”: see typo.

I think this study shows the bias of the researcher. They expect poor people (like me) to want people to give us a handout. We want to work and want other people to do the same. That’s conservative. We don’t want what little we make to be taxed for the benefit of some politician’s pet project. Finally, we want government to get out of our way so we can start our own businesses and get out of poverty. How many of the poor are entrepreneurial? Drive through Appalachia and notice how many houses (without the restriction of zoning laws) are also business. Many blue-collar jobs require people to start a small business to make significant money (e.g. hvac, plumber, mechanic).

I wonder if, perhaps, the study would be more telling if the data were cross-indexed with education level of respondents. How would the political views skew for highly educated low wage earners; less educated low wage earners; less educated high wage earners; and highly educated high wage earners?

I think it may be a psychological factor. People do not want to identify with being poor. They think if the government stays out of the way they will have a chance to become rich. It is a form of optimism and a defense mechonism.

To a Canadian, the average American has grow much poorer in the last 20 years. We in Canada have a Socialist choice on the ballet – the New Democratic Party! We can make changes and adjustments 1 We do not have to be labeled “Commie” to do so! America’s two party system has failed to present the threat of a different way of doing things to the ruling parties and they have become corporate stooges because of this! Not possible in Canada! If the minority conservative party shifts too far right, we invoke the New Democrats for balance! Yes we do so have the most successful medical care in the world and yes. we are subjected to medical triage and some of us, who can, get to wait while our doctors tend to more pressing medical situations! Thus we have the ‘Canadian Compromise’ built right into the parliamentary procedures that run the country! We do this in two languages by the way – keeps the silver tongues honest! If it don’t translate – its a lie -in Canada!

As usual, we are presented with a “scientific” study that finds a controversial “what” with no attempt shown to explain the “why.” But who is supposed to furnish why if not the scientists who discovered there was a need for it? Certainly not the politicians.
It seems the science that philosophers gave birth to has found such ancestral conjecture to be a primitive pursuit.

Someone from Futurity should really read the comments. Paul Clifford pointed out a great typo hours ago and it still hasn’t been fixed. #fail

Really intersting study, BTW. I wish I understood the cognitive logic and am more curious to find out whether this is strictly an American phenomenon or more widely spread.

High wage earners who embrace conservativeness tend to be cynical and/or greedy. Low wage earners who favor conservative viewpoints in periods of increasing inequality are stupid. It reminds me of the frog in the pot of water on the stove, not noticing the temperature rising until his goose is cooked, so to speak.

Makes no sense until you realize that conservative political campaigns speak to basic survival fears: terrorism, violence (remember Willie Horton?), immigrants taking jobs. The working poor are concerned about taxes, even those who have no tax liability because of a very low income or earned income credit. (Many don’t see the connection between their tax refund and the taxes withheld from their checks. Even if they get a six or eight thousand dollar refund they consider whatever is withheld as tax they paid and would like it lowered.) Adding the hot-button religious issues of abortion and gay marriage further complicates the issue. Finally, folks are afraid that what little they have, the government will take away from them and give to someone who has even less — someone who, of course, is lazy, immoral, and un-American (or non-American).

I agree with balconesfalk. If that’s not stupid the only other word for it is suicidal.

As income inequality increases, the lower-income people, who have the most experience with government programs designed to “help” them, are less inclined to support them? Why is this a surprise? Government programs always come with strings attached.

The so called “strings attached” are the ones the corporations have on the officials whose election their secret contributions made possible, or aimed against their opponents targeted for defeat. Democracy isn’t about voting “for” candidates anymore. It is about eliminating whoever doesn’t tow the corporate line. Those left standing make the rules for skimming the cream off the economy–shifting the generalized wealth to the top 1% with tax cuts. Today’s version of the Golden Rule: Them that has the Gold Rules.

Some prominent media personalities in recent times have obscured what it means to be “conservative” and “liberal.” Based on Aristotelian philosophy of opposites, these terms represent end points on a continuum that may be seen as excess (on the extreme liberal side) and deficiency (on the extreme conservative side) with a wide range of relative difference in between.

To refer to oneself as only conservative or liberal while claiming animosity toward its opposite (as some media people do) is unrealistic, since neither term can be adequately defined or pursued except in relation to the other. Declaring oneself as “either/or” is comparable to denying or eliminating one’s own left (or right) hand because he/she prefers the opposite hand.

Only when so-called liberals and conservatives are not being led to consider each other as “the enemy” and see their true purpose as one of bringing about meaningful balance, compromise and reconciliation — which is what statesmanship is all about — will there be any true understanding about the issues that face us.

Some media figures make the news instead of merely reporting it–witness all the sexism heaped on Hillary Clinton’s campaign by cable news talking heads during the primary.
There seems to be a statesmanship vacuum in DC for the last decade. Obama came close to becoming a Republican in his attempt to bend over backwards to achieve bipartisan support for initiatives for which the voters had elected him. Republicans still unanimously opposed everything he proposed. They continue to excoriate and vilify him through secretly funded Tea Party organizations whose cant is blatantly and offensively racist. In this emotionally charged political environment there is merely obfuscation of issues. Instead of liberals and conservatives it boils down to bullies and “socialists.”

Mir: Unfortunate typo has been corrected. Thanks!

This article is frustratingly vague. What is a “high wage earner” ? Is there a “middle wage earner” ? What if this so-called tendency is driven by the fact that it is the middle class that favors a safety net, while in times of increased income inequality there is a smaller middle class, and thus fewer people to favor “redistrubution.”

Also, the equation of support or opposition to income redistribution as being the defining element of “conservative” is naive. The whole approach to politics that puts all political opinions on a single scale of liberal and conservative is totally bipolar.