This is a stereotypical response (a false dichotomy in response to another mostly false dichotomy no less) from someone with your background: a presumed psychology background (an overwhelmingly far left field statistically) from or near Portland, Oregon, one of the most rigidly far left areas within the United States. The Soviet Union was technically a far left nation and it was a brutally oppressive communist resume. The Nazis? Technically, they considered themselves “socialist”. Cuba? Oppressive far left “slumhole country”. Venezuela? Oppressive far left “slumhole country”. China? Technically a far left, communist “slumhole country” overall. Several relatively conservative countries politically such as Saudi Arabia, India, Japan, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Poland, Italy, and the current Russian federation are either fairly wealthy (or far from the poorest) or seeing rapid growth economically although all are far from perfect nations. Thusly “slumhole” is NOT an appropriate descriptive term overall and “virtually all poor countries are conservatives with conservatives values” is at best an example of how correlation =/= causation and technically the opposite assertion is also an example of this. The poorest countries (Africa takes most spots for poorest with Niger being near the worst) are not poor because they are conservative, they are poor because of natural disasters, disease, corruption, civil war, etc. However, there is an adage of truth to the notion that liberalism tends to make people wealth gaps very wide while conservative states tend to be more poor overall but with less wealth gaps. The wealth gap in California is perhaps the worst in the nation and similar wealth gaps can be seen in states like New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Countries like Sweden, one of the most liberal places in the world, has documented issues with extreme violence and poverty (“Swedish conditions) particularly regarding foreign immigrants. And speaking of immigrants, a number of them I’ve seen are actually very conservative who are very much against far left liberal agendas. The immigrant refugees that are far left most likely simply have collectivist values and belief that a government should more directly support its people whilst accepting the costs that come with that… conservatives merely are less likely to belief those costs are fair or worth it. The general point to made here is that your response is relatively devoid of logic and is instead a venomous retort from an almost certainly far left Democrat towards a right wing criticism.
