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

[EHK for Darwin]

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?

Do you see any elected Democrats pushing for this shit? Advocating it? Coming out on the "anti-religious" side of it? Hell no. This is all invented or exaggerated culture war shit that gets echoed and amplified on talk radio. If that's what you and they mean when they say 'anti-religious', then they don't know what they're talking about.

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?

I've never had trouble with first class or overnight mail.

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.

Neither are 99% of Republicans. Most of them, true believers and otherwise, come off as pandering sycophants. But that doesn't stop Republicans from being praised for their 'pro-god' talking points and Democrats being looked at as suspicious frauds whenever they throw god into too many speeches. I think this is one of those senseless double-standards. Republicans have staked out the monopoly on god and therefore are the only ones who can credibly talk about it.

[Shryke]

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.

I was talking about the American Utterly Irrational Hatred of "Socialism", which has become a meaningless word representing different things depending on the phases of the moon.

It's no different then a ton of other issues. Most people rely on some sort of irrational "common knowledge" to determine what parties stand for.

Republicans are strong on National Defence. Why? Um .... Because.

And so on.

Doesn't matter what the truth is or what they actually want out of their government, Democrats are for taking my money and giving it to lazy welfare queens. Fuck them._{Now please give me my Social Security Check.}

[Lightning Lord]

Blauer Dragon

Can I ask you (at the risk of getting off topic) what it is that makes you vote with gun control as your ultimate issue? My father is the same way and I truly don't understand it.

My father is a social liberal who votes entirely based on the perception that democrats will take away his guns. When Palin was slotted as VP, he went crazy for her. I want to understand why.

[Shryke]

For more examples of irrational biases at work, see this:

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!").

The GOP is seen as the party of personal freedom because they are pro-gun. Who cares about those other freedoms, right?

Here's another:

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

The GOP is the party for the Religious. Ergo, Obama isn't. /nod

[Guest Other-in-law]

On the broader issue, I think there's a great deal of 'ideological purity' that gets reinforced through people's received cultural influences. If you listen to country music radio*, conservative talk radio, watch redneck comedy, watch Fox News, etc, you're getting a very consistent political message.

Some of this is very intentionally agenda-driven from management, some is genuine expression of their real views, and some is just telling one's customers what they want to hear to keep them happy, imo. The entertainment figures for this demographic could conceivably wield quite a bit of influence, and they aren't mindless clones incapable of thinking for themselves. What if famous Nascar drivers came out, for their own personal reasons, in favour of universal health care? Well, the Dixie Chicks came out against the Iraq War and damned near got crucified for it. Who wants to see their earnings plummet due to political honesty? Better on an individual basis to at least keep your mouth shut, sadly, which means marching in lockstep and sending out a consistent message to your audience.

*On the few times I've been unfortunate enough to do so, I was amazed at the partisan venom from the DJs.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Blauer Dragon

Can I ask you (at the risk of getting off topic) what it is that makes you vote with gun control as your ultimate issue? My father is the same way and I truly don't understand it.

My father is a social liberal who votes entirely based on the perception that democrats will take away his guns. When Palin was slotted as VP, he went crazy for her. I want to understand why.

That's going to be a tough one to paint in a light that will make sense. I'll do my best though. For me, there are multiple reasons.

First, guns were a major part of my life growing up. They often meant the difference between my parents having money for new shoes, clothes, toys, etc. and having to spend that money on groceries. I know that many people in my home region of the country still live under this same dynamic.

Second, they are symbols of freedom. A free man is armed, a slave is not. I know that guns have not prevented us from becoming slaves to our own society and our political system, but it is still an important symbol.

Third, (and this may relate more to the point above) the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd amendment for a reason. There was only one right that was important enough to come before it. If we let any of those first 10 amendments go away, then we might as well toss the entire constitution out the window. It never would have been ratified without any one of them. The messed up thing is that the 1st amendment is all but dead today.

Forth, though it is apparent that owning a gun would not empower a person to be able to fight against the government should the need ever arise (and I believe the possibility of that always exists), it is an American's right to right and responsibility to die fighting.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Also, the threat of civil unrest and armed gorillas springing up would be at least a stumbling block to any would be oppressive regimes. We elected a Dubya once, we could elect even worse somewhere down the line. i.e. someone with no morals and zero political experience.

Fifth, I truly believe that the only thing which makes the presence of guns in our society at all dangerous is the fact that we do not have enough guns in our society. I believe that the more guns we have, in the hands of more private citizens, the less frequently we will see guns used in the commission of crimes. I may be way off in that regard, but I don't think I am. Take me, for instance. Having grown up going through yearly hunter's safety courses (and going hunting) I'd be 5X as likely to reach for a knife in the heat of an argument than I would a gun (even if the gun was closer). Not saying I'd reach for either, just that the gun would be the very last thing, unless a gun was being pulled on me. I've actually been in a fist fight while I was carrying a holstered gun. The thought of reaching for that gun never even crossed my mind.

I could probably go on, but the argument becomes even less reasonable and "logic based" and even more emotional and "sentiment based" from here.

To all of those currently rolling their eyes at me, I apologize for the temporary derail and I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread (already in progress). Thank you.

[Shryke]

I don't think that is what Blauer is saying because I've heard Obama supporters posit that he's quite agnostic at his core. This opens up a whole can of worms because there is a fine line between a possibly agnostic Obama and a Christian McCain who loathes going to church. I guess my point is that there are a lot of people that don't believe that Barack Obama is the most faithful guy. Is it a cheap shot in the public forum given that everything suggest that he's Christian? Perhaps. But maybe we've become too convinced that anyone who isn't some evangelical nut no longer qualifies as faithful.

Sorry, that was a rant, I hope it made sense.

It's more a matter of people being unable to reconcile what they "know" to be true with the actual truth. And it does come from both sides.

People against him on the Right see him as not really religious because THEY are the side of religion in this debate. The Dems are godless babykillers, so if Obama is a Dem, he can't really be a Christian. QED.

People for him on the Left say he must be faking it to get elected because they agree with him. And since religious people are stupid and against us and Obama is on our side, he must be faking it. QED.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

First, guns were a major part of my life growing up. They often meant the difference between my parents having money for new shoes, clothes, toys, etc. and having to spend that money on groceries. I know that many people in my home region of the country still live under this same dynamic.

Second, they are symbols of freedom. A free man is armed, a slave is not. I know that guns have not prevented us from becoming slaves to our own society and our political system, but it is still an important symbol.

Third, (and this may relate more to the point above) the right to keep and bare arms is the 2nd amendment for a reason. There was only one right that was important enough to come before it. If we let any of those first 10 amendments go away, then we might as well toss the entire constitution out the window. It never would have been ratified without any one of them. The messed up thing is that the 1st amendment is all but dead today.

Forth, though it is apparent that owning a gun would not empower a person to be able to fight against the government should the need ever arise (and I believe the possibility of that always exists), it is an American's right to right and responsibility to die fighting.

Also, the threat of civil unrest and armed gorillas springing up would be at least a stumbling block to any would be oppressive regimes. We elected a Dubya once, we could elect even worse somewhere down the line. i.e. someone with no morals and zero political experience.

Fifth, I truly believe that the only thing which makes the presence of guns in our society at all dangerous is the fact that we do not have enough guns in our society. I believe that the more guns we have, in the hands of more private citizens, the less frequently we will see guns used in the commission of crimes. I may be way off in that regard, but I don't think I am. Take me, for instance. Having grown up going through yearly hunter's safety courses (and going hunting) I'd be 5X as likely to reach for a knife in the heat of an argument than I would a gun (even if the gun was closer). Not saying I'd reach for either, just that the gun would be the very last thing, unless a gun was being pulled on me. I've actually been in a fist fight while I was carrying a holstered gun. The thought of reaching for that gun never even crossed my mind.

1.) Gun control doesn´t have to do anything with hunting. Despite regulations Finland has 3rd highest gun-rate in the world because of extensive hunting around the country.

2.) If you have hunting rifle/shotgun you have a gun. Who really needs automatic weapons or handguns?

3.) Still having guns just not all kinds of.

4.) So the soldiers are like brainwashed to fight even against their own countrymen without questions?

5.) Yes and no. The more people who know how to properly use guns the better. But as the proper way to use guns is to not use em, the number of guns around is irrelevant. Just hold courses.

[The_BlauerDragon]

Blauer Dragon - I give you props...your posting has improved dramatically (as mine once did). Less, trolling, more cohesiveness...we may not always agree but I'm reading your posts now. That's to be commended.

Thanks Trisk. I have never asked or expected anyone to agree with me (it would be nice, and it would improve my opinion of you greatly, but it is not required), but the long span of having people think that I was trying to Troll was genuinely upsetting to me. I've never tried to intentionally Troll. I've tried to be absurd (or sarcastic) to make a point, and failed. I've tried to be humorous, and failed epically. I've been incredibly insensitive without realizing it. I've never to my knowledge tried to Troll though. Ironically, I think the posters that I respect the most here are the ones that have most thoroughly disagreed with virtually everything I've ever said here (without being nasty, hateful, or otherwise "Bad" about it).

4.) So the soldiers are like brainwashed to fight even against their own countrymen without questions?

When I was in the Army (which I'll grant you was not all that long), they frequently made it a point to emphasize that if the order came down to massacre an entire town that we were to obey it not only without question, but with glee. They frequently told us things like "Civilians are scum, the only reason they exist is because the Army allows them to exist." or "The only reason the civilian population is allowed to remain is because the Army needs the new recruits." Now, had I been in longer, I'm certain that mentality would have become much less frequently encountered, but I don't doubt for an instant that many of them would obey such an order without hesitation, many more would obey it after hesitation, and many more than that would obey it first and question it later.

[litechick]

There is an ideological divide which is often misunderstood.

I am totally blue-collar, working poor, yada, yada, yada. People don't seem to realize that there is a dividing line between the poor and the working poor. Every time that someone who behaves irresponsibly gets the advantage over someone who works hard and is responsible, the working people get pissed.

Take two high school girls who aren't especially academically gifted or ambitious. One gets a minumum wage job and works hard to take care of herself, the other gets pregnant. Girl A (working girl) has to make her way on her own. Girl B (pregnant girl) has people falling all over themselves to make sure she has adequate nutrition and pre-natal care; making sure she has a place to live and electricity.

I don't want to see people (especially children) suffer but when all the advantages and benefits are handed to people who fucked up, that can be really frustrating.

Or take two factory workers: they both make the same money but one has nicer clothes and drinks on the weekend, but also has roaches and drafty windows; the other keeps his home immaculately maintained but has no money for clothes and beer. The one with the drafty windows cries that although he works full-time, he can't afford the heating bill. The one with poor clothes just gets scorned for dressing shabby.

Minimum wage workers: you can be a model employee, get perfect performance reviews and climb $.75 an hour above minimum, then they raise the minumum wage but your wage is not raised accordingly. Suddenly your years of work are all for nothing, you get the same pay as some high school kid who is working for CDs and pot. It would be more appropriate to blame the company who doesn't raise your wage accordingly but you have no power over the company so you look with disdain on the high school kid and the people who raised the wage: "thanks for nothin'."

Education responds to supply and demand just like any other business. When you increase funding for education, educational institutes raise their prices. But all people see is that despite the millions of dollars of extra funding, they are not accomplishing the increase of education so they say 'we need more money for education.' The more you need an education to get along in the world, the more people will charge for giving you an education. People talk about rising tuition like there's no avarice involved, it's just natural inflation. I don't think it is.

Personal Freedom: I think a lot of people could give a shit about someone listening in on their phone conversations. I think the general sense is 'if someone is listening to me they need to get a life and stop wasting taxpayer money.' But the same people are more than likely sad that their kids will never know the freedom of riding in the bed of a pick-up truck--that's illegal. They won't be able to ride downhill really fast on their bikes with the wind in their hair--they have to wear helmets.

Some people believe in taking their lumps when they screw up and getting benefits when they do right. They may complain about the credit card company's sneaky shenanigans but they would be offended by a world that said 'you poor thing. You're too stupid to handle finances, let us regulate those mean credit card companies for you.'

It is understood that the company wants their profit margin to either stay the same or increase. In some sense, money spent to increase safety or reduce harm to the environment is money that is not spent on raises for the employees.

I used to work at a casino, setting up the lights and sound for the concerts there. We were hired by a labor company who charged the casino one price for providing labor and paid us a portion of that fee. At one point, someone stepped in and declared that the labor company had to provide worker's comp insurance for us. The labor company immediately declared that our wages would have to be reduced to compensate.

Now there are three ways that the additional expense could be integrated: 1) charge more to the casino; 2) labor company takes a smaller cut; 3) reduce wages. I know now (and didn't know then) that the labor company was charging something like $350 and paying us $175. I never imagined that the guy who made the phone calls to staff the show was making as much from my labor as I was. Do you see the fucked-up-edness of this? Someone has to take a hit from this government regulation and who is it? Me.

The government can only apply a formula: income = xx, cost of living = yy--here's your check. 'Rednecks' in small communities know the people as people. They know who is really struggling and needs help and who is just squandering their lives. They would rather give their money, spare clothes, and time to their church and help the people they know need help. They find the idea of a faceless government taking their money to give it without regard for who is honestly struggling to be offensive. When they help people directly they have the satisfaction of having done the right thing and when they are taxed they just feel robbed.

They are happy with Social Security because they have paid into the system and they are just getting their own money back.

A lot of poor working class people don't want the pity and the condescension of elites who make excuses for poor ignorant people who can't get along in life. They will accept a bag of potatoes from a neighbor with grace and help that neighbor clear some brush in return.

Frankly, like the OP, I am amazed that people don't understand this. A lot of the resistence to the Democrats' ideals is based on pride. The democrats often come off as 'oh look at the poor suffering masses! Let us take pity on them and be benevolent to them in their ignorance.' Why would it be surprising that they often get a resounding 'Fuck you!'?

Frankly, I think it all comes down to: Democrat is for poor people who are "on the take" and condescending elites and Republican is for rich people and poor people who say "damn your charity, I can make it on my own."

[Andriy Czarchenko]

When I was in the Army (which I'll grant you was not all that long), they frequently made it a point to emphasize that if the order came down to massacre an entire town that we were to obey it not only without question, but with glee. They frequently told us things like "Civilians are scum, the only reason they exist is because the Army allows them to exist." or "The only reason the civilian population is allowed to remain is because the Army needs the new recruits." Now, had I been in longer, I'm certain that mentality would have become much less frequently encountered, but I don't doubt for an instant that many of them would obey such an order without hesitation, many more would obey it after hesitation, and many more than that would obey it first and question it later.

So the problem is that US army is fucking insane. That´s very umm...nice to know. :leaving:

[litechick]

the Dixie Chicks came out against the Iraq War and damned near got crucified for it.

I feel compelled to point out that the Dixie Chicks got lambasted largely because of the venue in which they chose to speak out against the war moreso than the sentiment itself. They spoke out in Europe and were seen to be pandering to an anti-American crowd. They looked more like simpering sycophants than bold dissenters. They were only wrapped in the flag of martyrdom after the fact.

Also to the OP: Why would you want one POV to hold unquestioned sway over the country? I have always been of the opinion that it was good for the country to have a tight contest between POVs and a swing back and forth between them. The left forces needed progress on social issues but the right keeps things from going whacky. Either side unchecked would be silly and dangerous.

[Shryke]

Your mistaking the problem he's talking about litechick. (Not surprising given your post though) It's not about "We should only have 1 viewpoint", it's about the way people have a viewpoint, but then vote against it. It's about the difference between what people say they want and what they vote for. Although it goes beyond just voting often too.

"Government should stay the hell out of my business. But I vote Republican because gays are teh evil."

"I believe in personal freedom, but I vote Republican so they can wire-tap my fellow citizens to keep me safe."

"I don't need handouts. Now keep that money flowing from those damn liberal states into my gun-loving free state."

Peoples allegiance to a party or political movement is so often completely disconnected from the actual truth of what that movement does. You build up a good enough image, and you can do anything you want cause people will still buy your bullshit. Both parties know this. The GOP fucking lives off working class people voting to let the rich fuck them in the ass.

PS - Your post is pretty fucking funny. Why beat around the bush, you know you wanna use the term "Welfare Queen".

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Also to the OP: Why would you want one POV to hold unquestioned sway over the country? I have always been of the opinion that it was good for the country to have a tight contest between POVs and a swing back and forth between them. The left forces needed progress on social issues but the right keeps things from going whacky. Either side unchecked would be silly and dangerous.

What one POV would that be? Do you really think that if US as a whole moved to either direction it would mean one-party one-POV rule? :rolleyes:

The POVs don´t have to come from either of the current parties. A party that doesn´t follow the country will fade away in the US political system as it´s not representative democracy.

[Galactus]

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?

Huh. Obama comes across (at least to me) as a WHOLE lot more sincerely religious than McCain ever did. Seriously. He has that glow that sincere christians often have.

Parties are a bit more complicated than just a set of issues though. In part who you vote on depends on tradition, in part on your local representatives (if your local party organization is very strong or lopsided for one party, likely you will meet and interact with more favourable members of said party than from the opposition) certain people weigh issues differently of course, and in some cases it is a matter of "punishing" a particular party for not doing well enough. (If the dems come to power and don't do what they promise, people might vote republican simply to punish the dems)

[Lightning Lord]

snip

To all of those currently rolling their eyes at me, I apologize for the temporary derail and I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread (already in progress). Thank you.

I don't think I should post a proper response, since it would be quite lengthy.

Thanks for the post. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote, I've been hearing most of it my entire life. None of it really answered the question of why guns trump every other issue.

My siblings and I are healthy, educated, employed and law-abiding citizens, partly because my family was given a hand when things went badly. Guns didn't help at all. They didn't help my dad when he was unemployed for two years, though the unemployment checks sure did. They didn't help my sister when her husband went literally crazy and had to be committed, and she needed financial help to get healthy food for her infant son. They didn't help my brother go to school and they didn't help me find a job as a teacher. There are plenty more examples of this just in my family.

And my father still votes based upon which candidate he finds friendlier to gun owners. Not the ones that actually have helped he and his family.

ETA: Blauer, you did your best to answer the question, thank you. You can't answer for the actions of all, but you did answer why YOU find gun rights so important.

[Kouran]

So the problem is that US army is fucking insane. That´s very umm...nice to know. :leaving:

Slight derail here, but that is not the case. In my 14 yrs of service the command structure made a serious point out of "do not hurt civilians, unless they get caught in the line of fire and there are no other options."

Yes the military has an over-all "fuck the civilians" mentality when it comes to the fact that a bunch of pussies who never saw combat and make decisions based on how it will effect their poll numbers are in charge, ie white house. There is still a very large element in the military that remembers being hamstrung in Veitnam because of politics.

Back to the OP though. I frankly dont know why you bothered to ask the question. It is obvious that in your mind anyone who doesnt agree with the democratic party is just an idiot who doesnt know how bad they are screwing themselves over.

As to your question though I know that most of the people around where I grew up didnt want any help from the government. Most people have at least some pride and a desire to not suck on the tit of the system. Hell I am as conservative as they come, but even I agree with many of the principles of the democratic party. For example, environmental issues and personal freedoms. Yet at the same time lets look at the outcome. But...

The democrats are all for personal freedoms, yet if I want to say have a public prayer session at my school I get castigated. Now I can have a rally all day long for athiesm at my school, but I mention god once and I can just start counting down to when I get suspended. Frankly the whole do as I say not as I do attitude of the democrats gets them a bad rap. When freedom of speech and religon and gun ownership are a one way street people start to look at you in a different light.

[Lyanna Stark]

Back to the OP though. I frankly dont know why you bothered to ask the question. It is obvious that in your mind anyone who doesnt agree with the democratic party is just an idiot who doesnt know how bad they are screwing themselves over.

Was this really what EHK was asking though?

Ideologically, you also seem to be closer to a socialdemocratic style of Government than the Conservative party, so this is in your case a problem with issues within the current party closer to your ideals, not their actual ideology?

I'm as amazed as EHK by the fear of Socialism, since socialism, or social democracy, in proper doses, can actually help a lot. At least where I come from the social democrats are the workers, the true, proper blue collar workers. Not the leechers, hangers on or benefit fraudsters, but the hard-working lower classes who may need a hand if things go tits up.

It's sad to see that stuff my grandfather worked hard for all his life (he worked within the unions) is something people frown at. Back in the 1940s he was not allowed to even go to the same bathroom as the white collar workers where he was employed, for instance. He fought for things like annual holiday allowance to all workers, the right to health and safety regulations in the work place, the right to a decent pension for hard working people, but also a basic safety net when things went wrong, in case of illness, bereavement or unemployment. And his right to use the same loo as his "betters".

Being against benefit fraud and people playing the system should not be the same as saying "no unemployment benefits and no child benefits to anyone", I think. Instead what should be asked for is better regulation and a more stringent system. Being a hard working person is not an insurance against ever becoming unemployed, or ill, as I am sure many people in this day and age are aware of.

[Frog Eater]

I have not read all of the replies the the OP, but I wanted to chime in my response to why these people would vote against their interests:

1. Religion. conservative people want to vote for Jesus, and the GOP has aligned themselves with the religious right, and these people who want to vote for Jesus vote Republican.

2. Abortion. I have spoken to SEVERAL people here in South Carolina that this issue is numero uno in their hearts and they absolutely will not vote democrat because the democrats support baby murder. (their words not mine, I think they are stupid).

3. Taxes. These people really dont pay taxes at all, but they dont know that. Keep preaching no new taxes, and the democrats want to tax you to death, and they will run to the polls to vote Republican.

4. Personal Freedoms (Guns, Religion, etc): Never mind the Patriot Act is the biggest infringement on out personal freedoms ever, The democrats want to take your guns!

I think these are the biggest reasons I hear. Oh, and Obama is a Muslim who supports terrorists.

[S John]

1. Religion. conservative people want to vote for Jesus, and the GOP has aligned themselves with the religious right, and these people who want to vote for Jesus vote Republican.

I wouldn't vote for Jesus. He'd probably want to take away my guns.