[rayiner]

The tone is accusatory because usually there is a classist dimension to the question. Why does a high income tech worker vote Democrat when that would cause her own taxes to go up? The question implies noble intent on the part of the tech worked: because it’s better for society as a whole. We don’t extend that charitable interpretation to the blue collar worker in Iowa. Why do they vote Republican even though Democrats are promising them government benefits? We don’t charitably assume it’s because they believe it’s better for the country in the long run. We assume it’s because they’re easily manipulated or too dumb to understand what’s in their own interest.

[ajross]

OK, agreed, both sides have ample ability to manufacture outrage (I mean, come on: no one serious actually expresses the outrageous contempt you're imagining, that's 100% interpretation) over takes like this. I just don't see why it's remotely as asymmetric as you think it is. You don't think lefty folks get offended too?

[maxerickson]

I mean, I've heard blue collar workers ranting about how they finally got someone like Trump in to clean up Washington and now that "bitch Nancy Pelosi" is all over him.

That's not a nuanced "better for the country" discussion.

It was a real discussion, in a real factory, not a fake discussion in a fake coffee shop.

[rayiner]

“Better for the country” doesn’t have to be “nuanced.” “The best thing for America is god, guns, and capitalism” is not nuanced. It is, ultimately, an expression of values based on a belief about what will enhance national prosperity.

(I could recount “real discussions” with folks in northern Virginia growing up, where they express sneering contempt for the folks in the “rest of Virginia.” I don’t think that’s relevant. Obviously race and class play a role in political disputes in the US. That doesn’t excuse making assumptions about why entire groups of people vote the way they do.)