If you read what I write around here with any regularity at all, (A) that'd surprise the hell out of me! and (B) you're probably sick of hearing me say things like "If conservative polices are the best ones, why aren't states like Mississippi leading the rest of the country instead of lagging behind it?" I say it a lot. Probably too much. You pull the string on a Front Toward Enemy doll and that's what's gonna come out. But, to me, performance is one of the best ways to gauge the success of an ideology. A lot of things sound like they work when you read about them or hear someone talk about them, but when you actually put them into action, they sometimes fail, and fail hard. For me, examining the results gotten by the states that most consistently elect conservatives is the most effective way to prove that conservatism is wrong-headed and doesn't work. I've confronted Republicans with this before and they never have any good defense against it.
So, you can imagine how gratified I am to see Leonard Pitts, a nationally-syndicated, respected, Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist saying pretty much exactly what I've been screaming for years and years now. Finally, maybe this will get heard and people will start to question what they blindly vote for.
Yeah, probably not. They'll more likely dismiss him and go back to believing the crap spewed by FOX News and the other people who tell them what they want to believe. More than likely they don't read newspapers at all. But, at least now it's out there.
You should read the whole column, but there'll be a few choice exceprts if you jump over the orange visual depiction of the sum of Republican accomplishments.
First, the main gist:
If Republican fiscal policies really are the key to prosperity, if the GOP formula of low taxes and little regulation really does unleash economic growth, then why has the country fared better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones and why are red states the poorest states in the country?
And that's a very fair question. Especially when
Forbes Magazine, which will never be mistaken for
Mother Jones even in bad light, declared Obama
the best economic president of modern times.
In every way, conservative policies get bad results. I live in Mississippi, so I see them first-hand. As I often say... well, hell, I'll let Pitt say it, since he's done me this favor!
Why is Mississippi not a roaring engine of economic growth?
Yeah! Why aren't we a Utopian example for everyone else? Why are we
dragging in almost $2.50 from the federal government for every tax dollar collected from us? If this shit's so good, like the Tea Party and FOX and Rush and Hannity and Beck and all those other people keep on telling us,
why isn't it working?
Conservatives always complain about "RINOs" and try to pull the "true Scotsman" trick whenever one of their guys comes up short, but the fact is, Mississippi has been electing conservatives -- real conservatives -- on a consistent basis for years. Even the few Democrats who make it to office here are about as conservative as Dems get. These are not "false conservatives" or guys who don't really put their plans into practice. They're the hardcore, Bible-thumping, fire-and-brimstone real-damn-thing. And we've been electing them for yeaaaarrrrrs, dude, decades, so the experiment's had a fair shot and plenty of time to get any good results that'd be forthcoming. So, if their policies were the best ones... wouldn't this state be first in something? Besides morbid obesity, I mean? We get the worst results on every level.
Many of my neighbors are hung up on abortion. They vote Republican because they think they're "saving babies." It's their big #1 issue. But... who has the highest infant mortality rate? Surprise, surprise, surprise! Feel free to look up the other red states while you're there. Check out the top ten. Try sweet tea and barbeque while you're there, 'cuz ya'll gone be in the South a good bit, honeychile, bless your heart.
Those figures are due, in large part, to conservative policies. They hate "social programs," so babies -- babies who are already born and therefore beyond debate as to whether they're actually "babies" or not, and babies who, presumably, someone wanted -- die. In the "pro-life" states.
Which are the most corrupt states? Second verse, same as the first.
You can play this game all day. Look up who has the worst education, the highest crime, the highest unemployment... and on and on and on. Keep going, do it for yourself, don't just trust me on it. Think of a thing, look it up, see who gets the worst of it. It's almost always the states that vote for Republicans the most consistently, and thus live under their governance.
Back to Pitts:
The same group earned the same rating for a claim that 97 of the 100 poorest counties are in red states.
And then there’s a recent study by Princeton economists Alan Binder and Mark Watson that finds the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. Under the likes of Nixon, Reagan and Bush they say we averaged an annual growth rate of 2.54 percent. Under the likes of Kennedy, Clinton and Obama? 4.35 percent.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but that's why I'm so glad Pitts said this stuff -- he has an audience beyond just the choir. And red staters need to start looking at this data, examine the results they've been getting for the votes they've been casting, and stop being stupid.
I mean, seriously, if you had a mechanic whose work was getting this kind of lousy performance out of your car, you'd change mechanics in a heartbeat. And this is a lot bigger than your car. So why do Republicans keep electing the people who get them such lousy results? I know there's a whole "us vs. them" team mentality going on, but fuck, dude, this is the fate of the nation, not football. Lay off the rah-rah, look at the results, and realize you're being snowed.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Pitts, for doing what you could to relieve me of a great deal of frustration. Finally somebody's saying it besides me.