Jump to content

Voting against your interests: Why does it happen so often?


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

Had the occasion to mingle with a bunch of the 'enigmatic' white working class today. A variety of issues got discussed. They bitched about predatory credit card companies going out of their way to fuck you over, comparing it to legalized loan sharking. Several bitched about a local chemical plant that spent 50 years spewing noxious shit into the air and how many employees involved now have cancer. One lady related the story of how she was forced to file for bankruptcy due to her sons medical bills some years back. They spoke fondly of social security and of getting all that you can out of it. They got pissed at big corporate businesses who tried (and failed) to rape their union pension fund some years back. They bitched about price gouging at the pump, demanded that the government should do something about it. There were more topics, can't recall them all, but you see where this is going.

Now just about all of these are, at least ostensibly, Democratic issues. Issues that you'd expect a liberal democrat, or god forbid SOCIALIST, to come out on their side much more often then a Republican would. Not always eloquent, not always nuanced, but they essentially made the Democratic Party argument and took that side on each of these issues. And do you know what came next?

Someone mentioned Obama. Someone else bitched that he's taking this country in the wrong direction. Then EVERYONE chimed in about evil socialism this, socialism that, and how he's destroying the country.

What.The.Fuck?? They just spent half an hour ranting like the lovechild of Huey Long and Fidel Castro, then they turned their venom against the guy who actually did sit the credit card companies down and demand a halt to their most abusive practices, the only party that actually advocates environmental issues, the guy who has been talking universal healthcare for the last year and a half, the only party that's not actively trying to rape unions....where the hell does this come from?

How the hell do these people (and sooo many more) have such a MASSIVE cognitive disconnect between the issues they take up, the arguments they make, and the people they actually end up electing? Do they not get that they're voting pretty much 100% against their interests? Is the Republican rhetoric that good? The Democratic image marketing that bad? Are guns and abortion that huge of a deal, or are they simply ignorant of reality?

For the life of me I can't understand it. To listen to them talk, the issues they choose, the sides they take up...these people should be the most loyal, true blue, liberal democrats you could find. They shout down the word socialism though they advocate for significant degrees of it and benefit from it every day. What the hell is going on and how the hell can Democrats bridge that gap?

Because bridging that gap, if it ever can be done, is A key to absolute permanent majorities and a real demographic shift to the left in American politics. I believe these are the folks Obama was talking about who are disillusioned with government and so 'cling' to their guns and religion. They have most of the proper positions and arguments. They just need that spark, that enlightenment, to make the connection between those issues and the party that pretty damned obviously best represents them. It seems so obvious. So easy.

So why the fuck isn't it happening? Why hasn't it happened yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the right has done an excellent job of somehow representing themselves as the champion of the common man. Theyve created a perception that they are champions of the constitution and the 'Amercian Way.' Whatever that even means.

I do NOT understand it at all. Last weekend I went to a wedding in North Carolina. Most of my family was present. My family is a bunch of people from West Virginia with blue collar roots and they say the same things that you detailed above. I drink my beer and don't say much 'cause I don't see them much and I don't want to fight with them.

But in my head I'm thinking... you know, these motherfuckers don't give a fucking shit about you. They wouldn't give a fuck if West Virginia fell into a fucking hole and died if there weren't resources to rape. I mean, 'socialism' is a damn curse word in that company, but might be the only thing keeping you out of the poor house. Medicare, welfare... take a look at the numbers, West Virginia needs that shit to survive. It's a state of old and poor poeple, and you all are voting for folks that would love to let you sink?

I just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because more goes into why people vote they way they do than oil companies charging $4.00 a gallon for gas.

Just because some people identify with SOME democratic issues doesn't mean they are predominant factors in why people vote the way they do. I'm sure some democrats even agree with republicans on some issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think alot of it is "family history". If their family votes for a particular party, especially if they've been doing so over a number of generations, then these people will more likely vote for the same party despite their political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because more goes into why people vote they way they do than oil companies charging $4.00 a gallon for gas.

Yes, irrational prejudice. Sadly, very few people vote in anyway approaching "rationally".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because more goes into why people vote they way they do than oil companies charging $4.00 a gallon for gas.

Just because some people identify with SOME democratic issues doesn't mean they are predominant factors in why people vote the way they do. I'm sure some democrats even agree with republicans on some issues.

Way to be nonresponsive. Don't you have a kitten to waterboard?

I think alot of it is "family history". If their family votes for a particular party, especially if they've been doing so over a number of generations, then these people will more likely vote for the same party despite their political views.

I don't know how much there is to this. Remember that Democrats were the rednecks long before the Republicans were. You go back 2 generations in these 'white working class' areas, everyone was a Democrat. This is something else I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now just about all of these are, at least ostensibly, Democratic issues. Issues that you'd expect a liberal democrat, or god forbid SOCIALIST, to come out on their side much more often then a Republican would. Not always eloquent, not always nuanced, but they essentially made the Democratic Party argument and took that side on each of these issues. And do you know what came next?

All of these are issues that both parties have positions on. Some of these issues, both parties have the same position on, from a practical point of view - Coke or Pepsi, it's still cola. Not having heard the conversation, it's possible that you're right about all of this and all of these people are ignorant dupes, but there is another alternative. Namely, that you're hearing what you want to hear and are constrained by your own ideological blinders.

For the life of me I can't understand it. To listen to them talk, the issues they choose, the sides they take up...these people should be the most loyal, true blue, liberal democrats you could find. They shout down the word socialism though they advocate for significant degrees of it and benefit from it every day. What the hell is going on and how the hell can Democrats bridge that gap?

Democrats simply can't bridge the gap with these people and keep their base happy. Some people want equality of outcome, some people see more justice in equality of opportunity. Socialism won't play with a significant portion of people, alas probably not a majority, no matter how many goodies are promised by the government.

Because bridging that gap, if it ever can be done, is A key to absolute permanent majorities and a real demographic shift to the left in American politics. I believe these are the folks Obama was talking about who are disillusioned with government and so 'cling' to their guns and religion. They have most of the proper positions and arguments. They just need that spark, that enlightenment, to make the connection between those issues and the party that pretty damned obviously best represents them. It seems so obvious. So easy.

From the sound of it, the spark these folks need to get them to make the connection between themselves and the party that best represents them is for the Republicans to return to being the party of fiscal sanity instead being Democrats Lite when it comes to spending.

Yes, irrational prejudice. Sadly, very few people vote in anyway approaching "rationally".

I wonder what the correlation is between people you see voting 'rationally' and people you see voting as you would like them to. Just saying, that cut's both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with whoever just mentioned that "socialism" is a curse word in this country. The American intellectual war against Communism has backfired in certain instances. The irrational fear of anything to do with "communism" or "socialism" is severely limiting the search for viable solutions for our current economic and social problems. Half the time, people tossing around the "socialist" label aren't even using it correctly. I've witnessed many instances of "You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means" moments. Way to go, Joe McCarthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you probably do not want my opinion on this, but I'll offer it anyway. ALL of the following is strictly my opinion on the matter, YMMV.

1. Guns really are THAT big of a deal! You could give me a candidate that fit my image of the perfect choice in every other possible respect and the moment that he said one word about being even remotely in favor of gun control I'd do everything in my power to keep him out of office.

2. A big Federal Government is a horrifically in effective and ostensibly detached beast that is doomed to be forever laden with inefficiency and corruption. Making the government larger, and putting it in control of every aspect of our lives might have some very good points to it, but you cannot deny that it would have some major draw backs also.

3. Making an enemy of religion is not the answer. Keep organized religions away from the political table as much as humanly possible, but don't try to purge faith from the people. There is nothing wrong with having your own faith.

4. Individual freedoms are the #1 concern. That is the thing people fear losing more than anything else. Ironically, they line up in mass to vote those freedoms away from each other every chance they get, but it does not change the fact that they fear losing freedom.

5. A lot of people never really get to see anything truly good coming from the democratic party. They believe that it was the democrats that opened up the social security system to allow the government to "utilize" the funds (and as such screwed the whole system up). They see the democrats as being the ones that are constantly trying to raise their taxes and nickle and dime them to death. They see their jobs moving over seas and think that it is because the democrats have over taxed the corporations (not because the corporations are greedy and the government gives them huge incentives to outsource). They don't see increased safety and environmental regulations as being helpful, they see them as adding expense and difficulty to their lives. They see the democrats as being the reason that we haven't closed off the southern border (and by extension the reason why we all have to "press one for English" now). They also see the democrats as being in favor of providing welfare to the lazy, the drug addled, and the otherwise undeserving. They also think that the democrats are the reason why there are people who've made their entire career (and a comfortable living) off of pumping out kids and abusing the system. Then there are those who remember that it was the Dixie Democrats that were the primary opponents of equal rights legislation (and by extension they think that all democrats are equally hypocritical).

6. People understand that any time you give a new power or authority to the government you must account for the absolute worst person you could ever possibly envision having that power some day getting elected. This point is the one that I think is the most stinging irony of all the horrible little power grabs that we allowed Dubya to get away with. If we ever elect another one like him, we'll all be in for a very rude awakening.

Anyway, that is my opinion. Take it for what it's worth, but I see it as being a PR problem coupled with a bad need for some house cleaning and some rethinking of priorities. Personally, I'd like to see the two party system abolished, and everyone currently in office at any level immediately replaced by a new (and political contribution free) election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these are issues that both parties have positions on. Some of these issues, both parties have the same position on, from a practical point of view - Coke or Pepsi, it's still cola. Not having heard the conversation, it's possible that you're right about all of this and all of these people are ignorant dupes, but there is another alternative. Namely, that you're hearing what you want to hear and are constrained by your own ideological blinders.

At least compared to Democrats, Republicans are in rhetoric and practice: Business friendly, union hostile, opposed to any form of socialized healthcare, have not made 'taking on the credit card companies' an issue, rarely advocate environmental issues, ideologically support the right of a business to make whatever profit they damned well please and only come down from that perch when there's huge scandal or abuse...no, I didn't mishear nor are my ideological blinders clouding everything. These people were taking the Democratic side of predominately democratic issues, than lashing out at the leading Democrat for being an evil socialist set to destroy the country.

Democrats simply can't bridge the gap with these people and keep their base happy. Some people want equality of outcome, some people see more justice in equality of opportunity. Socialism won't play with a significant portion of people, alas probably not a majority, no matter how many goodies are promised by the government.

The gap, at least on the issues these people focused on, is a communication one rather than an issue one. Lefty Democrats and these working class types are already on the same page with these things, they just don't appear to know it or acknowledge it. While they might have other key issues (thinking abortions and guns) that the Democrats won't change to appease them, on the issues brought up in this discussion...there's no way to piss off the base because there's no issues that would need changing.

Socialism 'plays' with everyone in this country and people are perfectly happy to 'play with it' so long as you don't call it socialism. Public roads, schools, post offices, prisons, courts, police, fire dept's, social security, etc, etc, etc...all varying degrees of socialism. Its not the concept they have a problem with, its the name.

From the sound of it, the spark these folks need to get them to make the connection between themselves and the party that best represents them is for the Republicans to return to being the party of fiscal sanity instead being Democrats Lite when it comes to spending.

No, fiscal sanity didn't come up in any of these discussions. They appear to want more and better government services, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Making an enemy of religion is not the answer. Keep organized religions away from the political table as much as humanly possible, but don't try to purge faith from the people. There is nothing wrong with having your own faith.

What? How are the Democrats anti-religious? The word "god" was probably used more than "president" during the inauguration.

4. Individual freedoms are the #1 concern. That is the thing people fear losing more than anything else. Ironically, they line up in mass to vote those freedoms away from each other every chance they get, but it does not change the fact that they fear losing freedom.

I dunno... the last regime did plenty of harm to personal freedoms under the name of the Republican Party. It seems to me that people are married to the idea of that party and less about that party in practice. It's like cheering for that losing sports team no matter how many games they loose or how much steroids their players are on ("But no! That's my team, man!").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read enough of EHK's undoubtedly exhaustive OP to know the answer is the GOP's War on Science, and it's ancillary battle against education that is the reason we're not a more leftist state. People need to be exposed to the idea that there is another way out there in order to be voting for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you probably do not want my opinion on this, but I'll offer it anyway. ALL of the following is strictly my opinion on the matter, YMMV.

1. Guns really are THAT big of a deal! You could give me a candidate that fit my image of the perfect choice in every other possible respect and the moment that he said one word about being even remotely in favor of gun control I'd do everything in my power to keep him out of office.

Your opinion is welcomed and I appreciate your post. Really is sad to hear on the guns thing. I'm not saying its an insignificant issue, but in the grand scheme of things there is (IMO) alot of shit a hell of alot more important. That said, the fact that no major national Democrat has moved on (or even heavily discussed) a significant gun control measure since the mid-90's should make this less of a decisive issue right now. But it appears that is not the case.

2. A big Federal Government is a horrifically in effective and ostensibly detached beast that is doomed to be forever laden with inefficiency and corruption. Making the government larger, and putting it in control of every aspect of our lives might have some very good points to it, but you cannot deny that it would have some major draw backs also.

This is 'conventional' wisdom and gets spouted alot, but in the end, its a largely unproven fallacy. Rhetoric that has not been shown to be reality. Is government really that much more ineffective and inefficient than private industry? Prove it. And even if it is to some degree, are you better off with a 'more efficient' private business serving only their own interests vs. a government entity mandated to serve the public interest? I mean if the public is getting screwed and exploited, do you really care if you're getting screwed and exploited 'efficiently'?

3. Making an enemy of religion is not the answer. Keep organized religions away from the political table as much as humanly possible, but don't try to purge faith from the people. There is nothing wrong with having your own faith.

Making an enemy of religion? Where? Who? Obama has spoken more eloquently and thoughtfully on religion than any national politician I've ever heard of. He reached out hard and sincerely to that demographic and caught hell for his troubles even before the 'clinging' comment. Beyond Obama, leading Democrats have never been outwardly hostile towards religion and frequently invoke the Judeo-Christian lipservice seemingly required of politicians in the US. Yeah, I've got a war against religion. So does Dawkins and Hitchens. None of us are Senators.

4. Individual freedoms are the #1 concern. That is the thing people fear losing more than anything else. Ironically, they line up in mass to vote those freedoms away from each other every chance they get, but it does not change the fact that they fear losing freedom.

On what planet are the Republicans of the last 8 years more friendly to individual freedoms than the Democrats?

5. A lot of people never really get to see anything truly good coming from the democratic party. They believe that it was the democrats that opened up the social security system to allow the government to "utilize" the funds (and as such screwed the whole system up). They see the democrats as being the ones that are constantly trying to raise their taxes and nickle and dime them to death. They see their jobs moving over seas and think that it is because the democrats have over taxed the corporations (not because the corporations are greedy and the government gives them huge incentives to outsource). They don't see increased safety and environmental regulations as being helpful, they see them as adding expense and difficulty to their lives. They see the democrats as being the reason that we haven't closed off the southern border (and by extension the reason why we all have to "press one for English" now). They also see the democrats as being in favor of providing welfare to the lazy, the drug addled, and the otherwise undeserving. They also think that the democrats are the reason why there are people who've made their entire career (and a comfortable living) off of pumping out kids and abusing the system. Then there are those who remember that it was the Dixie Democrats that were the primary opponents of equal rights legislation (and by extension they think that all democrats are equally hypocritical).

This pretty much comes down to ignorance and marketing. (propaganda) Or ignorance in large part created by right wing propaganda. Reagan's 'Welfare Queen' bullshit playing out a generation later. Total bullshit, but whatever. Also, I've never heard of people blaming government for companies leaving. I've heard of them blaming greedy companies for companies leaving. If anything, I've heard of them blaming government for not doing enough to keep the jobs here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? How are the Democrats anti-religious? The word "god" was probably used more than "president" during the inauguration.

First off, I don't think that anyone actually believes that Obama is the least bit religious (or that he is Christian, anyway). Second, I must not have made the point I was trying to make. It's all about appearances. Whenever the Democratic party takes a stance that is so easy for the Republicans to paint as being Anti-Religion and they don't make a convincing argument that they are not anti-religion it gives the appearance that they are. Take the whole "Under God", "In God We Trust", Christmas pageant, and general zeal for extermination of religious references in all things public and it makes it very easy to paint the "They hate God!" ("They eat babies") picture. Does that make sense?

What I was trying to point out were the "Perceptions" that hold people back or put people off. It doesn't make it true or false. It's just the way that many of the people being discussed here "see" it as being. Most of it does come down to ignorance and propaganda.

As for the Govt. vs. Private question. If you have a package to send and you really want to be certain that it will get there and get there on time and undamaged. Who do you choose? The USPS or a private company like UPS or FedEx?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I don't think that anyone actually believes that Obama is the least bit religious (or that he is Christian, anyway). Second, I must not have made the point I was trying to make. It's all about appearances. Whenever the Democratic party takes a stance that is so easy for the Republicans to paint as being Anti-Religion and they don't make a convincing argument that they are not anti-religion it gives the appearance that they are. Take the whole "Under God", "In God We Trust", Christmas pageant, and general zeal for extermination of religious references in all things public and it makes it very easy to paint the "They hate God!" ("They eat babies") picture. Does that make sense?

Right. So it's less about Democrats actually being anti-religious (which they most certainly are not) and more about Republican spin.

And even if Obama isn't Christian, the alternative is not "anti-religion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So it's less about Democrats actually being anti-religious (which they most certainly are not) and more about Republican spin.

And even if Obama isn't Christian, the alternative is not "anti-religion".

Yes! it is more about spin. That's exactly what I was trying to say. 99% of the topics I listed above are at least 90% just a matter of how it all gets spun. I guess I have once again put out a post that was not as clear and concise as I had thought it was. My apologies.

ETA: As for Obama's religion, I could care less what he does or does not believe. He could worship the one armed, one eyed, flying, purple, people eater for all I care. That's between him and whoever he prays to (or doesn't pray to). I'm just saying that he isn't very convincing to a lot of people when he says that he is Christian. Again, that's probably mostly due to the spin factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the real problem the Democratic Party faces is marketing.

Should they hire social anthropologists who've studied rednecks? :)

Bad jokes aside, it really is about advertisement, propaganda and how one appeals to the masses. The Democrats have one section cornered while the Republicans have the others. Half the time (or even more than half), it's less about actual policy and more about the images of the ideologies put forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I don't think that anyone actually believes that Obama is the least bit religious (or that he is Christian, anyway).

Is this more of the 'Obama is Muslim' horseshit again? What is this based on? Don't you people get tired of repeating the same old ignorant crap again and again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, I think that elevating people economically into positions where they can afford to be more concerned about things like education is going to be the only thing that can ever affect any real change one way or the other. When so many people in the country are struggling to make it to their next paycheck, furthering their education (or safeguarding the education of their children) is often the last thing that crosses their minds. I deal with people day in and day out that tell me that they'd love to get a degree and get a better job if they could only afford to. They are terrified of taking a few hours off from worrying about whether or not they'll have enough money to make until that next check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, I think that elevating people economically into positions where they can afford to be more concerned about things like education is going to be the only thing that can ever affect any real change one way or the other. When so many people in the country are struggling to make it to their next paycheck, furthering their education (or safeguarding the education of their children) is often the last thing that crosses their minds. I deal with people day in and day out that tell me that they'd love to get a degree and get a better job if they could only afford to. They are terrified of taking a few hours off from worrying about whether or not they'll have enough money to make until that next check.

The cost of education has gotten pretty insane in the past couple of decades. This is incredibly unfortunate on many levels. Not only do I find educational very important for making informed decisions, but there's an increasing number of employers these days that look for degrees from their applicants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...