Knowing what's good for you

Eduardo writes:

Why is it that, according to (many) legal economists, the sorts of things the poor think are good for them (e.g., labor laws, minimum wages, redistribution, etc.) are actually counterproductive and quite bad  for them, but the sorts of things the rich think are good for them (e.g., estate tax cuts) are actually pretty much ok?  Is it just that poor people are stupid or something? 

I'm sure if I could just come to understand that whatever is good for the rich is good for everyone else, I'd be able to tap into a whole universe of truth and justice that continues to elude me.

After hacking my way through the unexpected thicket of dense sarcasm, I find that I share my friend Eduardo's confusion:  I too wonder why it is that so many prominent "progressives" -- who enjoy regarding and congratulating themselves as tapped into, solidarity-style, the needs and concerns of the poor (T. Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas" comes to mind) -- are so quick to insist that low-income and working-class people who want things like restraints on the abortion license, bans on same-sex marriage, reduced foreign aid, limits on immigration, censorship of pornography and indecency, flag-burning amendments, gun-ownership rights, religion in the public square, "law and order" measures, more Cracker Barrel restaurants, and subsidized NASCAR -- and who vote accordingly -- fail to understand what is really good for them.  I mean, are these people just stupid or something?  I'm sure, though, that "if I could just come to understand that whatever [accords with the latitudinarian and libertarian preferences of progressive academics and wealthy celebrities] is good for everyone else, I'd be able to tap into a whole universe of truth and justice that continues to elude me."