[kenberg]

I got some numbers wrong, sorry, too quick in scanning, but still....

Some large number of people who are middle class but struggling vote for an R instead of a D. Yes it breaks down by race, and I think not just when Obama is in the WH.

So why?


One explanation is that they are simply deluded. Always possible, but should we not consider other possibilities?

My own notion of personal economics is that if I ever feel the need to be richer I will go back to work. I don't expect either party to have much to do with my personal financial situation. So my vote is usually based on other issues.If the country does well, I expect to be able to take care of myself.

[hrothgar]

Short aside: It has long been held and empirically verified that environment quality is a "luxury" good. I am using the word "luxury" in the former economist sense, by which I mean and people's income increases, the amount that they spend on protecting the environment increases.

I suspect that many other "political" preferences fall into the same category. As people get more money, they place more of a priority on what would otherwise be silly distractions like abortion or gays rights or any other social wedge issue. People become more willing to prioritize these sorts of issues than they do more basic economic considerations.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2015-September-22, 16:59, said:

I got some numbers wrong, sorry, too quick in scanning, but still....

Some large number of people who are middle class but struggling vote for an R instead of a D. Yes it breaks down by race, and I think not just when Obama is in the WH.

So why?

One explanation is that they are simply deluded. Always possible, but should we not consider other possibilities?

Why can't we use the word "racism" in this thread? I think it's much easier to be in favour of redistribution if you don't think many of those benefiting are "different" than you.

Why do you think Donald Trump is still leading the polls, "despite" many racist statements?

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on 2015-September-22, 09:34, said:

I can see why your fantasy family would have a tough time accepting the Democratic agenda as you portray it (and I know you are not suggesting that it is as simplistic as that), but that is only part of the issue. That explains why many not-rich whites don't vote Democratic, but doesn't directly explain the biggest mystery (to me) of US politics: why they vote for a party that is run by and for the rich. The republican party, at least in terms of the elected representatives, almost uniformly supports measures that have, over the past 35 years, created the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. In an era of ever-increasing productivity and profitability for US business, the middle class and below have seem real incomes stagnate or drop, while the upper class (and the US is absolutely a class-divided country now, just in a different way than the old European ones were), has become extraordinarily rich.

This has been accomplished by massive tax breaks for the wealthy, justified by what used to be called voodoo economics...the patently false notion of trickle down economics. This has likely been cemented in place by the Citizens United travesty, which took a very valuable legal fiction (that corporations are in some senses 'people') and twisted it into giving corporations rights that they have no business (pardon the pun) having...allowing even vaster quantities of cash to distort the democratic process. Join this with the utterly bogus idea that PACS and SUPER-PACS are unrelated to the candidates or parties they endorse, and you get the US system.

It is no surprise that republicans have an open agenda to destroy higher-education for almost all but the children of the wealthy. I know some people who went to high school and/or university in the US, and the tales they tell of the ignorance of most of their fellow students would be amusing if it weren't frightening. Under-educated children....children taught fantasies rather than history, children taught that religion is more reliable than science....turn into ignorant adults, easily indoctrinated by glitzy ads and the liars of Fox News.

I think that the gullibility of the typical white middle or lower class voter is exemplified by the joke that was circulating a few years ago. A trade unionist, a rich man, and a tea party member sat down for coffee. There was a plate of 12 cookies on the table. The wealthy person took 11 of them and then warned the tea party member to watch out: the union guy was going to try to steal the last cookie.

We are not perfect in Canada...not even close....and we have some of the same issues. I often think that one of the reasons we don't have quite the same egregious problems is that we are a far smaller country, and the pot which the rich wish to take for themselves is smaller...the stakes are smaller. I also think that our traditions are far more European than American, in terms of the notion that we are citizens in a society, rather than individuals seeing all others as the competition.

Two things make me shake my head in sadness that this is the mess that I'm leaving for my daughters and granddaughter: 1) that Ben Carson. Presidential candidate, is on record as being a "creationist" who does not accept evolution or the Big Bang Theory, and 2), that this same Ben Carson is being reported on by our news organizations as if he were a legitimate candidate.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2015-September-22, 16:59, said:

I got some numbers wrong, sorry, too quick in scanning, but still....

Some large number of people who are middle class but struggling vote for an R instead of a D. Yes it breaks down by race, and I think not just when Obama is in the WH.

So why?


One explanation is that they are simply deluded. Always possible, but should we not consider other possibilities?

You might want to consider reading "What's the Matter with Kansas"

http://www.amazon.co...a/dp/080507774X

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-22, 18:09, said:

You might want to consider reading "What's the Matter with Kansas"

http://www.amazon.co...a/dp/080507774X

Indeed.

Ideology clearly trumps reason sometimes. I differ from some others in that I think we are all capable of falling into this trap. But I gather that Kansas has lost its collective mind.

[y66]

Frank's May 2005 NY Review of Books essay covers a lot of the same ground as his book and is a fast read.

[blackshoe]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-22, 05:39, said:

European society comes from a legacy of structure (autocratic, land-owning legacies), compression (many living in limited space) and negotiation (rules and regs.)
US society comes from a legacy of "freedom" (wild west syndrome), expansion (there is always a frontier into which you can grow) and coercion (might makes right and I have a gun...)

The "American Dream" explains both of your questions to a certain degree. It is, as you state, a case of mentality and what the individual believes in rather than a rational (and sensible) weighing of alternatives and repercussions.

I would have said it's more "might doe not make right and I have a gun to prevent people from imposing their view that might does make right on me". Also, you seem to be saying that Dems are more rational than Reps. Ii seems to me that neither is particularly rational.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-23, 05:28, said:

Also, you seem to be saying that Dems are more rational than Reps. It seems to me that neither is particularly rational.

No offense Ed, but your in a mighty poor position to be judging what is / is not "rational".

You seem to base your political philosophy on a poorly constructed mishmash of 50s science fiction and gold-buggery.
At best, your opinions are considered to be a joke.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2015-September-22, 17:25, said:

Why can't we use the word "racism" in this thread?

I specifically chose not to mention race in my previous post and think that the thread will be better if we keep the subject out of the spotlight.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-September-22, 20:26, said:

Frank's May 2005 NY Review of Books essay covers a lot of the same ground as his book and is a fast read.

The resentment of which he speaks is real, including with people who are not easily given to resentment. A now deceased friend, let's call him John, would from time to time comment on our more liberal friends. John's kids went to public school, as did he, as did I, as did my kids, as do my grandkids. We had more than one or two liberal friends who had very forceful ideas about how public schools needed to do more to solve social problems. Their kids went to private schools where these problems were not encountered.

I have been thinking about "Why do people of modest means vote Republican?" as this thread evolves. I think I have some answers.

1. It seems to me I vote my values rather than my personal economic interests. I think I always have done so, even when my economic situation was less secure. It seems reasonable to think that many others do so as well.

2. This will be longer. I mentioned above that I was responsible for paying tuition to college. Why was that, since the tuition was $200+ a year. This would not have been petty cash for my parents, but they could have handled it. So why? I believe I can answer that. In the culture I grew up in, when I graduated from high school my parents could be expected to say ":Job done, time for the kid to take care of himself". Both my parents were on their own well before the age of 17. So their job, by the standards I grew up with, was completed.

Now let me fantasize a conversation, along the lines of Gerben's fantasy of when a European politician asks for money for his campaign. Here we imagine a politician explaining the need to help people. The response is likely to be along the lines of:

These are adults we are speaking of, right? Over 21? Were they just wiped out by a flood? If so I can see they need help. No, no flood? They will need how much help and for how long? A lot? And with no end in sight? They are doing what to help themselves?
Nice talking to you but no, I don't think so.

3. On a more positive note: I think many people are willing to listen to why we should support public education, training programs, and probably programs to help people with alcohol or drug related problems. We should help them, but they have a role to play as well. The help should have a beginning and an end.


If the Dems want these votes, they might be available. They might profitably ask themselves why they are not getting them. Hint: Blaming Fox News is not the way to go.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-23, 06:21, said:

No offense Ed, but your in a mighty poor position to be judging what is / is not "rational".

You seem to base your political philosophy on a poorly constructed mishmash of 50s science fiction and gold-buggery.
At best, your opinions are considered to be a joke.

Apparently they are to you. I don't consider that binding on me

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-23, 06:21, said:

No offense Ed, but [....]
At best, your opinions are considered to be a joke.

Are you sure about this? The "no offense" part, I mean?

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-23, 06:25, said:

I specifically chose not to mention race in my previous post and think that the thread will be better if we keep the subject out of the spotlight.

Excluding the signal most important explanatory variable rarely leads to good results

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2015-September-23, 06:38, said:

The resentment of which he speaks is real, including with people who are not easily given to resentment. A now deceased friend, let's call him John, would from time to time comment on our more liberal friends. John's kids went to public school, as did he, as did I, as did my kids, as do my grandkids. We had more than one or two liberal friends who had very forceful ideas about how public schools needed to do more to solve social problems. Their kids went to private schools where these problems were not encountered.

I have been thinking about "Why do people of modest means vote Republican?" as this thread evolves. I think I have some answers.

1. It seems to me I vote my values rather than my personal economic interests. I think I always have done so, even when my economic situation was less secure. It seems reasonable to think that many others do so as well.

2. This will be longer. I mentioned above that I was responsible for paying tuition to college. Why was that, since the tuition was $200+ a year. This would not have been petty cash for my parents, but they could have handled it. So why? I believe I can answer that. In the culture I grew up in, when I graduated from high school my parents could be expected to say ":Job done, time for the kid to take care of himself". Both my parents were on their own well before the age of 17. So their job, by the standards I grew up with, was completed.

Now let me fantasize a conversation, along the lines of Gerben's fantasy of when a European politician asks for money for his campaign. Here we imagine a politician explaining the need to help people. The response is likely to be along the lines of:

These are adults we are speaking of, right? Over 21? Were they just wiped out by a flood? If so I can see they need help. No, no flood? They will need how much help and for how long? A lot? And with no end in sight? They are doing what to help themselves?
Nice talking to you but no, I don't think so.

3. On a more positive note: I think many people are willing to listen to why we should support public education, training programs, and probably programs to help people with alcohol or drug related problems. We should help them, but they have a role to play as well. The help should have a beginning and an end.


If the Dems want these votes, they might be available. They might profitably ask themselves why they are not getting them. Hint: Blaming Fox News is not the way to go.

From living in an area that is strongly Republican but has a large (relative to size) population of low middle class and working poor, I have decided that the main reason for the vote against self-interest is based on psychology, that for people who accept an interventionist supernatural being without question it should not be a surprise when this same group does not look too closely at political and economic claims that require more than a bumper-sticker sized message to refute. The Right has done a remarkably good job in positioning itself with catch-phrase sound bytes that are easy to recall, i.e., the government is the problem, lowering taxes is always good, the poor are porr because they are lazy, if it's good for business it is good for America, and so on.

The old adage in marketing is to "sell the sizzle, not the steak". It works, as people who cannot afford steak still vote for the sizzle.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2015-September-22, 17:25, said:

Why can't we use the word "racism" in this thread? I think it's much easier to be in favour of redistribution if you don't think many of those benefiting are "different" than you.

Why do you think Donald Trump is still leading the polls, "despite" many racist statements?

We can use the term "racism" if we must.

There was an article in the Washington Post a while back (I did not read it) as to how Trump may be hoping to do well with black voters. I read the first few sentences. The idea, I guess, is that black voters are opposed to immigration because benefits that could go to them now go to Latinos.

My thoughts? Good grief! It's not exactly that I regard this as impossible, I just hope it isn't so.

Much more than in the past we put people into demographic categories.

I will say more, a student just arrived looking for help, I must go.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-23, 06:25, said:

I specifically chose not to mention race in my previous post and think that the thread will be better if we keep the subject out of the spotlight.

You are welcome to be more polite than me, and I respect you for that. But in this case, I do think it leads to an incomplete picture. As an example:

Zelandakh said:

There is a long tradition in the Southern states of voting for the GOP. I think it is a combination of doing what the parents did, religion and fear/intolerance of other groups. There is a reason why this part of the country is known as the Bible Belt. Note that one could say similar things about the voting pattern in Bavaria concerning the CSU. This is something that seems to happen in almost every democratic country.

Don't you think it would be helpful for the European reader, not so familiar with US history, to explain when and in which context this tradition started?

There are many regions in Europe that have a strong tradition of voting guided by religious beliefs and values - anti-abortion, etc. Sometimes these align with anti-immigrant positions. But in the US they also align with being against any anti-poverty measures. Don't you think it would be worthwhile to try to explain that as well?

[hrothgar]

cherdano, on 2015-September-23, 08:15, said:

Don't you think it would be helpful for the European reader, not so familiar with US history, to explain when and in which context this tradition started?

This tradition started when the Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which was precisely the same point in time when all the racist Southern Democrats started transitioning into Racist Southern Republicans. Took a couple decades for the transition to fully work itself out, but by the time Reagan gave his famous states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi things had pretty well sorted themselves out.

[sharon j]

Gerben42, on 2015-September-22, 07:57, said:

Thanks for the answers it makes at least the first question a bit more logical. As for the second I get that companies want influence on politicians we have that here too. If you want to understand government policies just follow the money. In Germany VW won't get this much trouble over the tests in fact they have probably made sure they are legal here.

As for the second question if you would ask Germans (or probably other Europeans) so donate for campaigns the top 5 answers would be:

No
Are you nuts?
They don't need money they earn X times what I do
I already pay too much taxes
Hahaha you're funny

this made me laugh

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-23, 08:34, said:

This tradition started when the Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, which was precisely the same point in time when all the racist Southern Democrats started transitioning into Racist Southern Republicans. Took a couple decades for the transition to fully work itself out, but by the time Reagan gave his famous states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi things had pretty well sorted themselves out.

Yes, there's no doubt that racism switched southern voters from democrat to republican after passage of the Voting Rights Act. Lee Atwater, political strategist for Reagan and H. W. Bush and head of the Republican National Committee, explained the transition:

Quote

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

But the voters understand it.