Marx would be proud :-)

The weird thing is that most "dittoheads" are lower middle class fold who think that the Republican party speaks for them. That is the true genius of the right's rhetoric in the past 10 years: Convincing people who make less than $250,000 a year into believing that they are on their side. Wake up, people. You aren't in the same club as G.W. and all his asshole frat buddies and they don't care about you. The rich are getter richer and you aren't. Vote!

I've been cozying up to Marx for a long time. How nice that someone finally notices.

The disconnect of those who are working class thinking the tax policies are for their benefit is indeed puzzling, and perhaps good evidence that what passes for democracy in this country is a sad joke.

Leftb. is right in my mind. Many of the lower middle class are very right wing. But sociologically it is a very complex thing. I know a guy whose dad was a state employee all his life, the dad somewhat conservative in many things but voted Dem since he was part of the state employees organization. The kid hated feeling poor working class and tried to strike it rich as an entrepreneur. He started at about 16 and has been failing at it for about 20 years. But however many times capitalism fails him miserably he is still among the most right-wing people I know. Getting into decent hands-on work, being loyal to your employer and then demanding a living wage is just disgusting to this fellow. The "Rich Dad/Poor Dad" series of books shows this same attitude--those who work hard in a profession all their lives are weak-minded dupes; the capitalists are the really virtuous (so much for right-wing ideology valuing hard work).

In Latin America many of those most in favor of the right-wing authoritarian governments were small shopkeepers and other small-time capitalists. They were people who were by no means set financially (no Swiss bank accounts like the big boys), and yet as capital they had no stake in any kind of effort for workng class solidarity. Their fierce anti-socialism was as much a kind of spiritual appeal to the class they wanted so badly to break into as it was the only ideological ground they had left to stand on.

In America, I think that the priviledge and snobbery of the casual liberalism of those elites who poke fun at the lower middle class also drives the latter to the right. In our culture it's okay to make fun of white uneducated Southern men without college degrees. We say they wave the confederate flag, they are KKK, etc. And yet many of them haven't decided whether they are that way or not. Many are not benefitting from the wealth of this incredibly rich economy, and yet the left elites (in media, hollywood, etc.) don't seem to want them. So they won't touch a unionized profession or the Democratic party with a ten foot pole.

this is such a blatent generalization. Unions do not neccesarily raise wages. Generally yes they do, but when all workers of the same type of job unionize, those who could be making more based on their skill set are brought down, and some are brought up because they lack skills yet are all bonded together through a common union. Now the way you describe it, I consider myself to be a cheaper-labor conservative based on the economics of it all, but I still believe in a womans right to choose, I am disgusted that you feel I would encourage racism and bigotry. And unless you don't mind paying a whole boat load more for your daily neccesities, then you are going to be a hypocrit. Why do you think lettuce and strawberries and whatever it is you buy at the grocery store is so cheap? Would you mind paying eight dollars for a head of lettuce? Even if you're one of those "elitests" who holds much wealth, you wouldn't. And certainly you would not if you were a lower classer who could barely afford a head of lettuce as it is priced now. Also, if you look into it, many large manufacturing corporations PAC's donate money to liberal candidates. And much to my dismay, I just quit my wage earning job that paid me next to nothing. Yeah, it sucks, but such is life.

Furthermore, on the right column, that cute little graphic that says "clinton lied, hilary cried..." and so forth... well what do you consider Clintons orders into the Balkans, or lets not forget Mogadishu... How about bombing aspirin factories as a wag the dog?

It cracks me up that both the democans and the republicrats are always nitpicking at each others moron of a president. They remind me of second graders yelling at each other over whos mom packed the best lunch. Let me enlighten you. There are other parties and candidates out there for you to explore. There are the Libertarians who are so much better than any cheap labor wannabe rich person conservative. There are also the Greens who unlike the bleeding heart crybaby liberals care about our environment and curbing corruption in politics. Besides these two favorites of mine there are countless others with great qualities. Open your minds and look into alternatives you dupes. Your silly parties are just for the uneducated and stubborn.

Yes, it is a generalization, that's why you should read the whole essay in the original. The author isn't saying that every individual in the republican party is a racist He's attempting to formulate catch phrase to balance the catch-phrases of the right. It is a slogan. it is a short-cut. It is a phrase that encompasses an entire ideology. Read the whole thing: http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/beattherightinthree.htm

a cheap labor conservative

a cheap labor conservative

Or for dirty pool try a plantation conservative