Here's a scientific study that explains why southerners would vote against their own interests:Moochers Against Welfare
First, Atlas shrugged. Then he scratched his head in puzzlement.
Modern Republicans are very, very conservative; you might even (if you were Mitt Romney) say, severely conservative. Political scientists who use Congressional votes to measure such things find that the current G.O.P. majority is the most conservative since 1879, which is as far back as their estimates go.
And what these severe conservatives hate, above all, is reliance on government programs. Rick Santorum declares that President Obama is getting America hooked on the narcotic of dependency. Mr. Romney warns that government programs foster passivity and sloth. Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, requires that staffers read Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged, in which heroic capitalists struggle against the moochers trying to steal their totally deserved wealth, a struggle the heroes win by withdrawing their productive effort and giving interminable speeches.
Many readers of The Times were, therefore, surprised to learn, from an excellent article published last weekend, that the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorums narcotic the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasnt Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people dont eat Thai food and dont rely on handouts?
The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as most conservative received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.
Now, theres no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for means-tested programs such as Medicaid.
By the way, the same logic explains why there has been a jump in dependency since 2008. Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney suggest, Mr. Obama has not radically expanded the safety net. Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits. Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.
But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down?