Last week in 2301 we introduced the topic of ideology and how it helps us understand political conflict. Liberals on one side of issues and conservatives on the other. I mentioned this is simplistic and stumbled across an article pointing out a conservative split on whether gambling - casino gambling most likely - should be permitted in the state.
On one side you have the Americans for Tax Reform and small government / anti tax guru Grover Norquist. He wrote a letter to state legislators urging them to consider expanding gambling in order to counter projected budget problems during the next session.
On the other is the Texas Public Policy, which shares some of the same small government goals, but is funded by individuals with social conservative backgrounds. They'd rather not see gambling in the state. Morally minded conservatives tend to oppose gambling. So there's your tension.
Liberals tend to also be split by gambling as well, so perhaps this is one of those issues that ideology as we know it does not help us make sense of.
Here's input from a smart guy - and the general topic of the internal and external coherence of ideology:
I remember thinking about this several years ago regarding positions
on legalized gambling (casinos, state lotteries, and the like). Some
commentators were liberal and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to
gamble if they want, without fundamentalist bible thumpers telling them
what to do), some were conservative and pro-gambling (people should be
allowed to gamble if they want, without do-gooder liberals telling them
what to do), and similarly on the other side. And I recall reading
passionate arguments from various of these perspectives.
On aggregate, I suspect there’s a slight correlation between being a
liberal or Democrat and supporting gambling (it’s a traditional morals
issue, after all, William F. Bennett notwithstanding), but the
correlation is surely weak if there at all
