A diagram or “meme” is circulating online that shows a red map of Oklahoma with some of that state’s economic and social characteristics listed, along with a blue map of Massachusetts and a similar list. Its title is “In 2024 Only 2 States Voted Unanimously—Let’s Compare.” That diagram is generating a long and fascinating discussion on r/massachusetts, most of which focuses on one theme: Massachusetts is doing well, so of course its citizens voted for the status quo; and Oklahomans, in their relatively poorer state, are anxious for change. Many have pointed out that the diagram itself is a preposterous distortion of reality, which is certainly true. It conflates a 60/40 vote with a 80/20 vote, for example, and it uses two different sets of characteristics for the two states. Nowhere is mention made of the fact that Oklahomans, for example, enjoy a lower cost of living than do Bay Staters. As memes often do, it reduces a complex set of circumstances in the two states to “Oklahoma bad, Massachusetts good,” when it’s patently unfair to do so.

I am posting my comments here because r/massachusetts seems like exactly the wrong place for the discussion, which presents issues, I think, valuable for all Americans to hear and debate. I hope I’m not violating any rules of this sub by doing so. (I did review them first, btw.)

Please understand that none of what follows is a criticism of anyone. I respect everyone’s right to vote as they see fit, whether I agree with them or not, and I expect the same from others. I’ve learned a great deal about both Massachusetts and Oklahoma from writing this post, and that’s all to the good, I think. Perhaps others will also learn from reading it; I don’t know.

To me, the point here is not that Oklahomans are poor, or that they’re ignorant, or that they’re Indians (an issue that arises repeatedly on r/massachusetts), or that they’re victims of geography, or any of the other meaningless comparisons being made with Massachusetts in the 12,000-and-counting comments published there. The point is that they vote consistently— as far as I understand—for leaders who will make matters worse for them rather than better.

In 2025, the Oklahoma Legislature will be 80% Republican in the House, and 82% in the Senate. (There is one vacancy.) The Governor will be a Republican who just forced a delay to 2026 on a vote to raise the state’s minimum wage from the current $7.25 per hour. ($7.25 in Oklahoma City will buy you a pair of socks at Walmart, or an inexpensive meal at Taco Bell.) And that proposal is on the ballot through an initiative petition, because, I presume, the legislature and the Governor think that minimum-wage Oklahomans don’t deserve more than a chalupa and a cup of coffee for an hour’s honest work.

Does anyone really believe that this leadership will redirect resources from people who don’t need them to people who do? Will improve public education? Will protect public health? Republican politicians specifically campaign on refusing to do any of those things, and—I’ll say this for them—they keep those promises. But amazingly, to me at least, the vast bulk of Oklahomans continue to vote for them, against their own self-interest, year after year. And yes, I understand, and I agree, with the conservative position that “a rising tide lifts all boats”; it’s just that the only boats I ever see being lifted are yachts.

I’m not questioning the intelligence of poor and middle-class Oklahomans, by the way; I just don’t understand. And it’s not a question that’s unique to Oklahomans. The entire country just voted to elect a government in Washington that, again, campaigned on a platform of doing nothing to help the disadvantaged. And nothing, or worse, is exactly what they’re going to do.

Let’s talk about Massachusetts for a moment. Massachusetts, as has been pointed out, is one of the five wealthiest states in the nation. (Oklahomans, by the way, surpass Bay Staters in overall purchasing power, because of Oklahoma’s substantially lower cost of living, already mentioned.) And it’s not for Bay Staters being unwilling to give some of their money to Oklahoma. In 1972–the first Presidential election I volunteered in—Massachusetts was the only state in the nation to cast its 14 electoral votes for George McGovern. The District of Columbia added one more. The candidate who received the other 520 votes—save the one vote that went to John Hospers, whoever he was—was Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace two years later, demonstrating, if nothing else, that winning in a landslide doesn’t necessarily protect a President from their own character deficits.

If you know anything about George McGovern, I think you’ll understand my point. And Bay Staters have voted for Democrats—notwithstanding those candidates’ enthusiasm for taking Massachusetts’ money away and giving it to others—in every Presidential election since.

Turning next to the federal government, in the recent general election, voters nationwide, including all of Oklahoma’s electoral votes, elected a Presidential candidate sworn to deport every undocumented alien in the United States, at an estimated cost of as much as $300 billion, which would have increased the national deficit last year by about a fifth. If accomplished, Oklahomans would absorb $3.6 billion of that increase, over a third of the state’s current annual budget. And, realistically, not enough Oklahomans—if there even are enough who don’t already have jobs—are going to get out there in the Midwestern sun and pick the cotton needed to pay for that. And, by the way, the undocumented workers who (legally or not) used to do that work will be out of the picture. None of this is actually going to happen, of course; it simply provides a context for the claims made by Oklahoma’s (and the nation’s; lets give demerit where demerit is due) chosen Presidential candidate.

Let’s look at the Congress next. As they have for nearly three decades, all of Massachusetts’ nine Congressional seats will be held by Democrats. The same is true for both Senate seats. The exact opposite is true for Oklahoma: all five Congressional representatives, and the two senators, will be Republicans. I don’t know the context of the Oklahomans’ campaigns, but my bet is, none of them talked about allocating a part of the Bay State’s greater financial resources to satisfy pressing needs in Oklahoma. None of this is a criticism, precisely; it just surprises me to see Oklahoma’s relative poverty being held up in that discussion, as it is, as a reason for why the state continues to elect Republicans who promise to do, and actually do, absolutely nothing to address that inequity.

I know that I’m going to take some heat for this post, and I’m prepared for that. After 30 years representing clients from all walks of life in family court, it takes a lot of heat to drive me out of the kitchen. But of course, a more thoughtful response is more likely to make me—and anyone else—examine my own privileges and “change my view.” And, no matter how stupid and elitist you think I am, the proof is not in my words, but in the proverbial pudding: Will Oklahomans emerge from the next four years in improved circumstances, or will, as is too often the case in America, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? If my views here are wrong, I will obviously need to change them, a practice sadly absent from modern American political discourse. Imagine if we actually listened to each other, instead of resorting to name-calling in the absence of evidence to support our personal politics? As always, I will hope for the best, no matter where on the political spectrum that point lies. But only time will tell.

An AI tool was used to research facts stated in this post, but not to generate any text.