Why do any voters support liberals over conservatives, anywhere? Seriously, why?
Do voters may think liberals “care” about them? This is suspicious, since people running for office won’t ever meet most of the voters. They don’t know them. They usually live in totally different circumstances, so they lack first-hand knowledge of how the voters live. They don’t spend much of their time getting to know the voters. So any “caring” is of necessity very abstract, or based on caring about getting their vote. (The latter applies top Republicans running for office, too.)
Voters may think liberals are more generous, at least with government benefits. Government benefits are supported by tax dollars, not politicians’ personal wealth. If you have no qualms about giving away resources that cost you nothing, it’s easy to be that kind of generous. (Conservatives do this, too, though perhaps to a lesser extent.) When politicians define compassion, taxpayers are forced to practice it.
Perhaps voters think that liberals are “better” than conservatives, in the sense of being less evil. Considering the politicians aren’t funding programs personally, and suffer no adverse consequences for programs that don’t work, why not throw tax money at an effort to fix something? Even when it fails, you get credit for trying, and you can always say the failure was because those evil conservatives wouldn’t let even more money be committed. Giving in to the irresponsible impulse to spend other people’s money, with no particular metrics that the plan will work, isn’t compassion or any other form of “good”. And who pays for the failures? Both the taxpayers (e.g. funding) and the beneficiaries (e.g. suffering because the program didn’t provide real help), while the politicians run ads about how much they’ve done for you. For them, it’s win-win. For the rest of us, it’s lose-lose.
Voters may think the liberals are “cool” and “fun”. I hope the reasons do not include something this shallow. If they do, consider the chances that you will get to go to their parties in DC, or that they will drop by your next party. What good is cool and fun if it’s happening somewhere else? Somewhere that your tax dollars (or ones that might have been allocated to fund more benefits) are paying for it, and you don’t get to go.
It has been suggested that minority voters, in particular, believe that liberals understand their concerns better than conservatives. Human concerns include food, clothing and shelter. Modern human concerns include getting actual medical care (not just insurance), keeping your family together, and having the opportunity to succeed, both for yourself and your children. Everyone understands your general concerns, no matter what minority or majority group you affiliate with. We all have bills, we all need a job or some means of financial support. Many people either are, or have, aging relatives to be taken care of, and/or children that are going through some level of school. Liberal politicians harp upon helping the poor, the downtrodden, etc., but always with government programs. Government programs generally ensure dependency on government. It’s human nature to hope that a source of something you need will never dry up, but this means that you have to stay politically involved with keeping your benefactors in office. Meanwhile, if government programs worked, wouldn’t there be a steadily decreasing number of people using them? Unfortunately, that isn’t the goal of most government programs. If people become successful, they move on and the program shrinks, perhaps even eventually being retired.
Programs that end get no more funding. No funding means nothing for greedy politicians and their friends to skim, and fewer dollars in their personal pockets. Bigger programs mean more dollars in their pockets. Which way are the greedy going to go? BIGGER. So they expand the eligibility requirements so more people get with the program, which then needs more funding, which means higher taxes, more borrowing, more printing of dollars by the Federal Reserve, higher national debt, and less for private citizens to put into voluntary charitable contributions, savings (which banks can then invest as loans), and durable goods (like getting a new refrigerator or car) whose sales might result in more jobs and a way to replace the income of benefits with the wages of a job that doesn’t depend on a specific politician getting (re)elected.
Ask yourself who is most in favor of expanding government programs, using tax money (and borrowed or printed money) to stimulate the economy, insisting on states opening up the social safety net to embrace even more people? Who talks more about this being compassionate, and fair, and not so much about the costs, or even the effectiveness based on similar programs? Who talks more about the “evil” nature of their opponents, people who should be “punished”, and tends to brush off the errors of their friends?
Then ask yourself why you would vote for a liberal, or a “Democrat-Lite” conservative.