Why do people vote against their economic interests? Take a look at some threads here.

[RZM]

There are of course many reasons why this happens. Some people genuinely believe Republican policies are best for themselves and the economy. Others might not be fans of Republican economic policies, but vote on social issues or foreign policy.

But I suspect many aren't voting for Republicans as much as they are voting against Democrats - and among them, I'd guess distaste for liberals and progressives is a big part of that. There are many factors here as well, including racism, but I think it has to be acknowledged that many progressives can be quite condescending towards poor people who aren't solid Democrats.

With the Alabama and Mississippi primaries coming up and the recent Bill Maher piece, we're seeing this firsthand here on DU. In every thread about the south, you've got posters essentially saying that people there are subhumans. Lots of cracks about inbreeding, dental hygiene, and a general consensus that many people there are braindead idiots. It's not just about the south either. Many DUers seem to think that it's fine to call anybody who isn't rich and votes Republican a stupid, brainwashed idiot.

While most people have never heard of DU, let alone read it, I think this kind of thing matters. It's not as much about DU, but more about the fact that DU represents a slice of real-world progressive opinion. Stupid or not, people are quite attuned to what others think about them. They don't like being called idiots, racists, or brainwashed followers.

I'm not asking people to stop saying what they think. Nor am I asking anybody to stop being critical. I'm just asking people to think before they say this kind of stuff. While it might make one feel superior and be an occasion for back-slapping among the like-minded, that's about all it's good for. In the end, I think that it harms Democrats more than it helps them.

[CJCRANE]

1. Some good points

but I'm sure most DUers never refer to other people as 'subhumans'.

[RZM]

2. That's why I said 'essentially saying'

I've never actually seen anybody say that. But some people come pretty close without actually using the word.

And FWIW, here's what you get when you type 'subhumans' into the search here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=subhumans&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search!&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[Quantess]

3. Good points, except,

is there a way to mention the demographics without sounding insulting? Calling someone a toothless inbred is obviously way out of line, way over the top and unnecessarily insulting. But, how about racism? How about not believing in evolution or climate change?

For example, teabaggers don't appreciate being called racists, but yet...the shoe fits.

[RZM]

9. Real positions on real issues should be discussed

That's how it should work, IMO. I think that's a good thing and we're essentially in agreement here. Calling out somebody's position on evolution and discussing the the issue is constructive. Calling them names is not.

As for the racism thing, I do think it's a tad overdone, though a lot of it is also justified. We've seen racism against Obama since before he became president. It's out there and that can't be denied. What I don't agree with is the notion that most of the opposition to him is because of his race. It's part of it, but in the long term, Obama is just one man. Tens of millions of voters refused to support Democrats before anybody heard his name, and tens of millions will also oppose Democrats when he's no longer in office. It's a little disingenuous to argue it's all about race (not saying you are arguing that) when a divided electorate is a fact of life.

I honestly believe the Tea Party still would have emerged if Hillary had been elected president. While some of them do bring up his race, I think that's more of a byproduct. I think their beef is more with Democrats and the left in general. That's why it didn't emerge during the Bush years. I think you had some stirrings on the right against Bush's spending, but it was muted because he's a Republican. Once a Democrat came into office, the barriers against them were removed. Race matters here, but it's not the only thing.

But that's just speculation. There's no way to know.

[KT2000]

4. the great divide

and its war. Everyone could stand to be more thoughtful but people do consider their own positions superior to other positions and the people who hold them.
Wrapping oneself in the flag and the Bible is part of the game as well.
I just received an email of rw bumperstickers that claim republican superiority due to being white, Christian etc.
I just don't feel like being polite in the face of this kind of thing.

[libtodeath]

5. Most repukes

no matter what their situations are hold on to a mistaken belief that one day hard work and all that rah rah stuff will make them rich.
Add in a healthy dose of racism to give them someone to blame and you have the result there is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. I agree. As a child of the South, I think it is dangerous for us liberals to continue

to mock these people. They are serious in what they believe, and their views are not too far removed from the average American mindset.

Let's face it: that poll that came out last week that showed that 52% of Americans believe that Obama has either achieved nothing or next to nothing is very real. We do ourselves a disservice to continue to mock people who are misinformed. We are also wrong in believing that facts will convince people; or that we will win the election because we have the facts on our side. That way of thinking failed us in 2000, 2004 and 2010.

Americans are by and large non-political animals. We are easily persuaded by soundbites and catch phrases. We are easily influenced by the the news media and messages received on a daily basis regarding the political process.

Bill is wrong to mock and make fun of these voters in the south.

He is right to assume and argue that we liberals must work hard and take NOTHING for granted. Best believe, Romney may be having some troubles now, but these Republicans hate the black guy far worse and will be out in full force to vote against him.

They are not voting for Romney. That much is clear. They are voting AGAINST Barack Obama. In my mind, that is very clear!

[RZM]

12. I pretty much agree

2004 was somewhat similar. Romney and Kerry had some similar weaknesses. Both were essentially the establishment choice and selected largely on the fact that they were perceived as having the best chance to win. Both are also wealthy, upper-crust types who aren't particularly adept at connecting with regular folks. A lot of people weren't so much voting for Kerry as against Bush. I also think the results this year will be somewhat similar. Romney will probably give Obama a run for his money, but I bet he'll come up short. I even think the margin will be pretty close to 2004. It's pretty tough to win on 'I'm not the other guy.' You usually have to make a strong positive case to get over the top.

But I do also think that Romney voters in the general won't all be voting against Obama alone, they will also be voting against their perception of liberals at large - i.e. the people that they think look down on them and call them names. That's part of the reason the right has tried to frame Obama as an 'elitist.' They are well aware of what I talked about in the OP.

[politicasista]

42. LOL! Comparing the lowlife Romney to a man

of real integrity like Senator Kerry.

The media said the same things you are saying too. He was this establishment candidate that nobody liked and couldn't connect. If the MSM lies about Obama, it's false, but if they lie about Kerry or any Dem/Liberal we don't like, it must be true!

If people were weren't voting for Kerry, but against Bush, what motivated all the crowds in 04 to show up for someone that was so boring and stiff?

Oh, that's right, they were there to see Edwards, Springsteen, Bill Clinton, Obama and other celebrites and not the candidate himself.


Interesting not one person has been able to answer that question.


Thankfully, our President and Vice President have shown ten times more respect for the Senator than most here ever will.


And Obama is doing just fine and his nothing like Bush, thank you very much.

[Zalatix]

13. They mock us. Why do we have to play nice but they don't?

[cbayer]

16. Because we are better than them?

[RZM]

17. You don't have to do anything

But it's always a little odd to see what Republicans do used as justification for doing the same thing. I mean, isn't that a bad thing?

Let's take a fictional swing voter in southern Virginia. This is a white man, age 45, HS education, pulling down 32K a year in a blue-collar job. He's not much of a fan of either party and has some issues with both Romney and Obama. He's a Christian and pretty conservative on social issues but not extreme. Voted for Clinton twice and Bush twice, but became disillusioned with Bush in his second term. Supported Huckabee in the 2008 primaries, but thought McCain was out of touch and too much of an insider. He opted for Obama in the general because he thought we needed a shakeup in Washington. He's not particularly happy with Obama's performance but doesn't hate him. He's not much of a racist. He thinks Rush goes too far but believes O'Reilly is a straight-shooter.

This guy could go either way. If he gets the impression that educated liberals think he's a stupid racist because he lives in the south and doesn't have a college degree, could that tip him towards Romney? Conservatives aren't calling him names, after all.

[antigone382]

19. I live in the South and I consider myself part of the "they" the OP is talking about.

You don't insult your enemies when you paint the South with that brush, you insult me, and thousands of others like me who are working to create change here. The South is my home, my culture, and full of people who I love and causes that I care about. There is all kinds of suffering and lack of access to education, healthcare, and decent working conditions here, and while I understand the political causes for that, it doesn't help anyone for me to alienate people who are my friends and neighbors, and who have needs that should be met regardless of our differences. There are a lot of people suffering in the South, and dehumanizing them because of their dominant but NON-homogenous political beliefs helps no one. To me it is like rejoicing in hunger, poverty, and disease in Uganda and other areas, because attitudes towards non-heterosexuality are so vile there--ignoring that those attitudes have been fostered by an exploitative international elite.

I get to the point of detesting the lectures on race relations by "enlightened" Northerners who have no idea how to deal with a person of another ethnicity on an individual basis, who don't know what an interracial relationship looks like, who don't really know anything about the music, food, or culture of other racial and cultural groups--things that a lot of my Southern friends don't even have to think twice about. There are major structural and ideological problems in the South...but in my experience, the parts of the North that are the most sanctimonious only understand diversity as a concept, not as a day-to-day lived reality, as I have experienced it in the South.

Add to that an ugly reality of North/South relations that Northerners refuse to acknowledge: racial tensions were *deliberately stoked* after reconstruction by *mostly Northern* business leaders in order to stifle union organizing in the South. At a critical time in the history of U.S. race relations, the seeds of continued hatred were planted in a calculated efforts by Northern business interests. Ultimately, these efforts tended to fail--for a little while, workers in the South were able to recognize their common economic interests despite the efforts of the economic elite, but then the "red scare" conveniently popped up to break the unions' backs for good. But the point is this: the North benefited economically (in ways that continue to this day) from racism in the South, and developed a deliberate strategy to capitalize on that. Until *that* shame is acknowledged, I just can't stand the smugness any longer.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. You said a mouthful!

Very little is known about that aspect of.."race relations" as it once was called.

Also very little is known about the Republicans deliberately and intentionally targeted the previous Democratic South and turned it red in a very short time, again by playing the race card.

[KamaAina]

26. Rita Mae Brown on Yankees

One of the best of the plethora of fine Southern writers lets fly, from "Rubyfruit Jungle":

Yankees are compelled by some mysterious force to imitate Southern accents and they're so damn dumb they don't know the difference between a Tennessee drawl and a Charleston clip.

[Zalatix]

29. I see your point, but it's ironic that the South has its own equivalent prejudices against the North

We get called 'elitists' and welfare hogs (oh, the irony!). We see a ton of dehumanizing comments about the Left coming from the South. And just when the "North is just as prejudiced as the South" meme picks up steam, Hurricane Katrina comes along to literally wash that meme out to sea. Oh and how was the North responsible for the Klan, or Jim Crow?

[RZM]

31. On the racism thing, there is this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002238840

[Zalatix]

32. Can't deny that's a pretty damning statistic.

[Art_from_Ark]

38. The 1920s resurgence of the Klan

had its roots in Indiana.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. It's not necessarily about playing nice. It's all about being realistic about where we are.

The Democratic Party has somehow lost its tradition of being the party of the common man. Somehow the Teabaggers co-opted the populist message and ran with it, even though it is nothing of the sort. The Democrats seem afraid of the 99%ers. I'm saying that we need to be careful about assuming that facts will turn the minds of misinformed--and *bigoted*--people.

[Zalatix]

35. If we've been relegated to the nation's kicktoy then we've already lost.

Any time you have to play nice while the other guy can get dirty, you're pretty much done for.

You never come back from that.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. You can get down and dirty without mocking folks. I think the president has been doing an

outstanding job of this.

[Zalatix]

40. True, so let me explain it this way.

If you have a large number of people mocking you, the damage is already done and the damage is already fatal in magnitude. You have no chance of earning the respect of those that mock you.

There were 56 million Americans who voted for McCain and Palin in 2008. This, despite Palin's absolute raging madness.

Trying to reach this populace is an absolute waste of time. If you are nice to them they will make you their kicktoy. If you're mean to them they'll just get angry. Even in the Bible it's mentioned that many people's hearts were hardened; if God gave up on reaching some people, we don't have a chance.

Sometimes Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be saved; they just have to burn. And in this case Sodom and Gomorrah is not about the gays and lesbians, but rather those who profane even the most logical (in a secular sense) concepts of compassion.

If we must be cursed with having to be civil, do it not for the Righties - you will never reach them. Do it for the middle grounders.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. The thing is...

By and large, these people are bigots and weren't going to vote for Obama no matter how much we do. What we do is turn off Independents. Like it or not we need Independents, who in my opinion, tend to be easily swayed by soundbites and catch phrases. They also tend to WRONGLY blame *both* parties for the rhetoric.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Someone posted this brilliant observation from Lakoff...

Geroge Lakoff, the noted cognitive linguist had a column in yesterday's HuffPo about this problem.

The Santorum Strategy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/santorum-strategy_b_1338708.html

excerpt:

The Santorum Strategy is not just about Santorum. It is about pounding the most radical conservative ideas into the public mind by constant repetition during the Republican presidential campaign, whether by Santorum himself, by Gingrich or Ron Paul, by an intimidated Romney, or by the Republican House majority. The Republican presidential campaign is about a lot more than the campaign for the presidency. It is about guaranteeing a radical conservative future for America....

...

...Liberals tend to underestimate the importance of public discourse and its effect on the brains of our citizens. All thought is physical. You think with your brain. You have no alternative. Brain circuitry strengthens with repeated activation. And language, far from being neutral, activates complex brain circuitry that is rooted in conservative and liberal moral systems. Conservative language, even when argued against, activates and strengthens conservative brain circuitry. This is extremely important for so-called "independents," who actually have both conservative and liberal moral systems in their brains and can shift back and forth. The more they hear conservative language over the next eight months, the more their conservative brain circuitry will be strengthened...."

[taught_me_patience]

7. I vote against my economic interests when I vote democratic

however, there are other issues besides economic ones that are important to me. I completely understand when people vote Republican.

[Cal33]

11. In the past, maybe. But I can't understand a thinking person voting Republican today.

[Cal33]

8. Some are being paid to do it. If they need the money, I don't blame them. But these

probably don't make up a large number.

[loyalsister]

10. In my experience

It has been "God, Guns, and Gays."

To that I say that it's time to let go of the guns issue as it has been decided. As an atheist I have begun to make a distinct effort to acknowledge value in whatever gets a person through the night. I usually point out that I don't know a lot about it because I haven't read the bible and I am not inclined to. It makes it easy to end the conversation civilly. If I have serious problems with it, I walk away. No minds will be changed they are worthless conversations.
When it comes to gay marriage and gay rights, despite living in a mostly red state, I don't find myself mixing with people who oppose them. Abortion is another story. When it comes to those I try to get out of that conversation with some kind of vague agree to disagree language.

If we are part of campaigns, the main thing is to operate on an assumption that they have come to their conclusions based on their upbringing, cultural experience, and education and that they have value.
It's not my goal or business to change it.
I think developing relationships with people who vote against their interests is possible if show at least some respect for at least some of their beliefs and lifestyles. When it comes to social issues that have real widespread effects we have to stay out of those woods and focus on things that have effected their lives positively.

We should use some of the strategies we see politicos using with talking heads - deflect, dismiss, redirect, etc. in conversations. And especially keep it positive and personal.

[Aerows]

14. There has been a major push

to label liberals and Democrats as weak. You see it with idiots thinking that there are no Democrats serving in the military, that Democrats don't own guns, and liberals are associated with everything that's not "manly".

It's been an orchestrated attack by the right, which considering that most of them blather about war but never serve themselves is rather rich.

[RZM]

15. I don't disagree that Republican opinion-makers are working overtime to get any advantage

That's a given and there's not much that liberals can do about that, other than countering the arguments of course. Democrats are doing the same thing too - the war of perception rages 24/7.

I'm more talking about something liberals can actually do something about, which is not throw around insults than cause more harm than good.

[Aerows]

20. Well

I'll be completely honest with you. A warmonger that refuses to serve, categorizes men and women serving in our military as weak because they are gays, lesbians or just disagree with the right-wing, and believe that all gun owners are right wingers is an idiot.

An idiot is someone that has ideas that have been repeatedly been proven false but chooses to believe those ideas. I'm going to call them idiots. I'll do it to their faces, too, and have.

That doesn't do harm, in my opinion, it makes such people aware that what they believe is "commonly accepted" isn't commonly accepted at all.

[Old and In the Way]

18. 30 years of demonizing the words "liberal", "progressive", and "Democrat".

The underlining message in hate radio and Fox News has always been to associate these terms with evil. It's like Pavlov's dog experiment. Reinforcing the message association enough times and it becomes a natural response. Sadly, the word "Republican" now has the same effect on me. But that's primarily due to being exposed to 30 years of their actual legislation/governance/agenda. I didn't need some talk show host or commentator to tell me that their agenda is bad for my fiscal health.

[Aerows]

21. Right wing and Republican

Has very much become associated with intolerance, bigotry, idiocy and selfishness to me.

[ingac70]

22. No... they are voting FOR Republicans

i am born and raised in TN and generations of cousin marriage has taken it's toll.

[RZM]

24. I accounted for that in the post

Many voters support Republicans because they like their positions. But I think some people vote for them because they don't like liberals. In many cases all of these factors are at play simultaneously.

Democrats are similar. Some genuinely support the party, while others are voting against the right.

And the 'cousin marriage' comment is exactly what I was talking about. Saying that they vote Republican because they are inbred is well . . . you know

[LiberalAndProud]

25. Perhaps.

Perhaps we earn the "elitist" tag sometimes, would you say?

[RZM]

27. In my personal experience, many people who say these types of things are far from 'elite'

In fact, I suspect that might be part of the reason they do it. Much broad-brush bashing is really about wanting to feel superior to others. If you convince yourself that people who disagree with you are idiots and racists, you can sleep well knowing that you are superior to them.

I used to live in a college town in SE Ohio, which is pretty much Appalachia. Most of the other graduate students I knew were from other parts of the country and had never lived anywhere near Appalachia. I was quite surprised to see how many of them looked at the locals almost as a separate species. They never missed an opportunity to degrade them and call them stupid, inbred, morons (never to their faces, of course). Some of the loudest voices were not only liberals (most of the people I knew were liberals), but actually people from quite modest backgrounds . . . a few had grown up rather poor themselves. I got the sense that they were ashamed of their own backgrounds and liked to bash the local population because they were one of the few groups of people they could actually feel superior to.

This wasn't even about politics either. It was just cultural and economic bias. They resented the locals because of the way they looked and talked. Bigotry comes in many forms, I guess.

[LiberalAndProud]

34. Isn't it

elitist to consider one's self "better than" for any reason? I think I equate elitism with the intellectually-superior-snobbery that you have described so well. At any rate, I think our disagreement might be only a matter of semantics.

[RZM]

36. Yeah I guess you're right

An actual 'elite' would be somebody like a Kennedy or Romney. Someone not only with money, but with everything else that comes with it (education, connections, etc.)

But that's not very many people. A whole lot more are like you describe - somebody who thinks that for whatever reason, they are superior to a lot of other people. And you don't have to be an actual 'elite' to think that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Well truth be told for some the civil war never quite ended

The US is young but the hate, that's the correct word, for a region of the country, and the resentment from that region for losing...is no that far from dynamics in much older Europe. I have no idea how long that will take to go away, or if it will to be honest. And yes, much of the old south still resents reconstruction and none who lived through it is still alive.

What is true is that the GOP is becoming a southern Regional Party, for many complex reasons. Mostly they have adopted traditional southern democratic policies, see Dixiecrats.

As to the rest of the country stoping this. You know what? I have no idea how much it is the attitudes going back to the civil war, and how much is GOP stereotypes...before it goes off air listen to rush to see what I mean.

That said there is some of it, after all things like this start in school...with things like civil war/ war of Northern aggression.

How much is unconscious is a good question.

[SpartanDem]

30. Part of it is who is presented as liberals to the public

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2012, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)

While there are plenty of liberals who like hunting and NASCAR, you don't see these people presented the media. Instead what most of these people see are the Bill Maher's of the world making fun of them and that is a big turn off for people. He's the sterotypical liberal looking down on 'regular' Americans and this get pointed out to how all liberals think. The Republicans might be supported by the corporate barons who are thinking the same thing, but you rarely see them in the media.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. It actually involves the mental definition of "elite" IMO........

I don't think of a latte drinking, liberal academic as part of the "elite". In spite of what Faux Noise says. But that stereotype is the only thing that most of the southern white working class will ever know. The REAL elites (the ones that own the means of production, hence the very livelihood of the rest of us) are rarely if EVER seen by us proles.

[Nye Bevan]

37. When you search for "sheeple" in the DU search box (so you are only searching within DU)

there are over 1 million hits.

[shcrane71]

43. Good points.

There have been a lot of remarks about women who continue to vote Republican. Albeit, I can't understand how any woman could vote for Republicans, I think it's more difficult to win over these women to vote for a Democrat after she's been told she's stupid. Generally, name-calling tends to make one dig their heels in more.

Having said that, I'm no saint. I will try to avoid name-calling, or belittling people who don't see things my way -- and I will find this very, very taxing.

[thesquanderer]

44. Repukes? Rethugs? I hate that stuff.

I sometimes see some great posts on DU that I would like to forward to some of the more open-minded right-leaning people I know. But then there will be the infantile name-calling (in the comments, if not in the posts themselves), and I can't send them. I think DU has taken a step in the right direction in trying to get the people here to be more civil to each other, but there's still a lot of stuff that would be embarrassing to show to an outsider.

[hobbit709]

46. Because most people are so brainwashed by the constant barrage of propaganda

"that they can't think, won't think and wouldn't know how to think even if their lives depend on it."