http://www.ablogistan.com/archives/2005/05/the_american_dr.html
David Brooks writes about the different attitudes between poor Republicans and Democrats:
The big difference between poor Republicans and poor Democrats is that the former believe that individuals can make it on their own with hard work and good character. According to the Pew study, 76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work. Only 14 percent of poor Democrats believe that.
Kevin Drum offers an interesting analysis and points to another NYTimes article about income mobility:
New research on mobility, the movement of families up and down the economic ladder, shows there is far less of it than economists once thought and less than most people believe. In fact, mobility, which once buoyed the working lives of Americans as it rose in the decades after World War II, has lately flattened out or possibly even declined, many researchers say.
The incomes of brothers born around 1960 have followed a more similar path than the incomes of brothers born in the late 1940's, researchers at the Chicago Federal Reserve and the University of California, Berkeley, have found. Whatever children inherit from their parents -- habits, skills, genes, contacts, money -- seems to matter more today.
My question: Is the low-income Republican outlook on life the result of a constructive optimism or foolish idealism? I think it's a little of both. For a long time, sociologists have found that there is a lot less economic mobility than Americans would like to think. Liberals, particularly young liberals in college, are often chided by middle-aged conservatives for their blinding idealism. But isn't it just as foolishly idealistic to base an outlook on fictional stories by Horatio Alger, as Brooks does, when so much statistical data points in the opposite direction?
Not to say that it's impossible to advance in American society. But in general, your parents' income/education/status has a major influence on your own. Imagine two swimmers in a race, where one swimmer starts in the half-way to the finish line, and the other starts at the beginning. It's not that it's impossible for the latter swimmer to win the race, but he/she's going to have to paddle like a duck on speed to catch up.
But isn't the Horatio Alger outlook on life beneficial, even if it doesn't match up with reality? In a sense, it is helpful to have an optimistic outlook, as it provides a sense of motivation and the drive necessary to advance in society. But when the American Dream develops into dogma, a mantra repeated in every situation, it becomes dangerous. Because too often, instead of believing that it is possible for hard work to lead to success, people assume that everyone's success is a direct reflection of the amount of work they've done.
According to this mindset, Paris Hilton is one of the hardest workers in the United States.
I think it's healthy to believe in hard work and advancement, as long is it's balanced with a realistic understanding of how society functions. If the government provided no assistance to those at the bottom of the ladder, the gap between the haves and have-nots would grow so wide our society would barely function. So to the conservatives who exploit the American Dream to cut government programs that help level the playing field for low-income Americans, I say this: Stop being so damn idealistic.