This is where each of the parties' energies are put.
Rs --> Cosmotarian,
Ds --> Progressive
And as I said earlier, they agree more often than not, especially when it comes to social status matters. Identification with totems of accomplishment and display of consumer power through various types of trophies are characteristics of progressives and cosmotarians alike. Both are more concerned about gay/lesbian/bi/trans/∞ rights, abortion access, eternally improving technology and constant dogged pursuit of biosynthetic life than everyone else in America who wouldn't ID as progressive or liber( actually, cosmo)tarian.
The cosmo may pretend he/she is a fan of personal liberty, minarchist government, etc., but if the essays by present day cosmotarians and the posted thoughts of commenters at places like the Silent T are any indication, really their liberties are about greed (lower my taxes because I want more, not because I care about efficiency in govt); promiscuity (everyone should fuck everyone all the time, PLUS it's way more important that gays/bis/whatevers are treated with kid gloves than it is to ignore all sexuality matters unless the acts in question might actually constitute sexual assault or sexual battery); and hedonism (we like weed, but tax-and-regulate; we're not really minarchist or libertarian, we just like money, and tax-and-regulate sounds like a niche we might slide into for some extra profit ourselves, PLUS we hate those blue collar working class idiots who grow and sell weed on the black market).
Tell me how that's different from the progressive. Tell me how they're not both one-upping themselves by putting down any blue collar, uneducated, redneck indicia they encounter in their own brand of American Lifestyle.
To prove the interdependence and/or difficulty-in-distinction, I just hit a Middle Class Bubble test at the PBS website, and I arrived at that website because of a link at the Silent T.
Answering the questions honestly, I scored a 64.
What this means only Charles Murray knows for sure, and Mr Murray's past work hasn't been the most objective I've seen. He likes confirmation bias enough to make his work unscientific IMO. But if you value someone's work for what it may trigger in your thinking, rather than for whether it's earned the Ultimate Authority shield, there may be something to what Murray's done here, or at least as far as the questions I answered showed Murray's perspective.
Apparently a 64 is a pretty high score, and I have to say that my relative unemployment (hence: enhanced poverty) during the past 5 years made the score a bit lower, since there was a question where I was asked how many movies I'd seen in the past year, and I haven't seen any, mostly because of the cost. Probably I'd have a 68-72 if I was more eager to risk the cost of a SONIC BARRAGE experience at the local multiplex.
According to the PeeBeeEss website, my 64 score means this in Murray-land:
48–99: A lifelong resident of a working-class neighborhood with average television and movie going habits.Sounds pretty accurate to me.
--Paul Behrer, whose familiarity with lace curtains is non-existent.