Why people 'vote against their own interests' ?

[HiPointDem]

The book that answers the question = Winner-Take-All Politics, by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson...

In the 60s, at the same time that labor unions begin to decline, liberal money and energy starts to flow strongly toward "postmaterialist" issues: civil rights, feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, etc. These are the famous "interest groups" that take over the Democratic Party during the subsequent decades.

At about the same time, business interests take stock of the country's anti-corporate mood and begin to pool their resources to push for generic pro-business policies in a way they never had before. Conservative think tanks start to press a business-friendly agenda and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce start to fundraise on an unprecedented scale. This level of persistent, organizational energy is something new.

Unions, already in decline, are the particular focus of business animus. As they decline, they leave a vacuum. There's no other nationwide organization dedicated to persistently fighting for middle class economic issues and no other nationwide organization that's able to routinely mobilize working class voters to support or oppose specific federal policies. (In both items #2 and #3, note the focus on persistent organizational pressure. This is key.)

With unions in decline and political campaigns becoming ever more expensive, Democrats eventually decide they need to become more business friendly as well. This is a vicious circle: the more unions decline, the more that Democrats turn to corporate funding to survive. There is, in the end, simply no one left who's fighting for middle class economic issues in a sustained and organized way. Conversely, there are lots of extremely well-funded and determined organizations fighting for the interests of corporations and the rich.

The result is exactly what you'd expect...Thomas Frank's famous working-class Kansans who vote against their own economic interests are easily explained. It's not just that conservatives appeal to them on social grounds, it's that there's no one left to really make the economic case to them in the first place. And even if anyone did, they have little reason to believe that Democrats would actually follow through in concrete ways. So why not vote on abortion and gay rights instead?

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/paul-pierson-jacob-s-hacker

[riverbendviewgal]

1. a good understanding of this is to

read Joe Bageant....

he was from there and wrote about his people.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. "These are the famous "interest groups" that take over the Democratic Party"

Only we never did. With the possible exception of the McGovern campaign, the Democratic Party has run center-right mainstream candidates for president, and the national party has been controlled and run by its corporate friendly handlers since the 80's.

I agree that nobody is making a progressive economic political case at the national level - but that is most certainly not because of anything more complicated than the simple fact that we have a duopoly that presents center-right and hard-right choices to the voters.

[HiPointDem]

3. I tend to agree that identity issue groups didn't literally take over the party. What i'd say is

more that they replaced unions as a visible constituency whose interests were appealed to v. the other side.

[hfojvt]

29. so Mondale was "center-right"? Dukakis was "center-right"?

Both of those two, and Gary Hart (not to mention Jesse Jackson) seem well to the left of Clinton,Gore, Kerry, Obama.

But even those four sometimes made a progressive economic case, at least in rhetoric. One problem is that there are not powerful interest groups to push the Democratic Party to follow through. Whereas there are powerful interest groups such as the ACLU and AARP to make the case for social issues and the elderly.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. No and yes.

Mondale was probably the last 'liberal' candidate.

Gary Hart was outside the box enough to have his campaign effectively derailed. Jesse Jackson's rainbow movement scared the crap out of the duopoly such that they rewrote the primary rules so that he wouldn't have another shot at actually winning. See the Dean Scream for details.

[craigmatic]

4. Fuck the reason why they do it. They key is working around those assholes.

[HiPointDem]

5. yeah, there's a winning strategy. how's that working for you?

[craigmatic]

6. Well we got HCR and Obama elected the first time. So I think it's working pretty well.

[HiPointDem]

7. there's the difference between you & most people. corporatist policies & candidates = "victory".

so popular that a schlub like romney can be effective against them.

even though romney's hca was the trial run for obama's/

[craigmatic]

15. Well give examples of how your way of thinking has won us anything at all recently.

[HiPointDem]

16. i can't give examples re the party, because no such thinking or efforts have been made "recently".

like for the last 30 years.

[craigmatic]

19. Then what are you complaing about then? You yourself just admitted in a roundabout way that

Obama has been the most progressive president we've had in the last 30 years.

[HiPointDem]

23. admitted no such thing. i'm complaining as i've been complaining since reagan. you prefer

we all suck up to our masters?

[craigmatic]

25. I have no master. I just recognize progress when I see it even if it's small.

[HiPointDem]

26. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. par for the last 30 years.

[demosincebirth]

8. I worked, for years, in a union shop, with a guy who always voted republican. No matter how many

of us talked to him (sometime argue) he always came up with the same answer, basically. About the big Cadillac driving up to the welfare office and a well dressed black women went in to collect her welfare check. This was the premise of his argument. Sounds stupid, but many, many think like him and it's the dems fault for allowing it to happen. Forget the good paying union job. and the job security he had, you could not change his mind.

[Wild_Dog]

31. Republicans use this welfare cheating to frame the argument and gather up those who believe it then

vote based on some crazy moral attitude.

[hughee99]

9. I don't think people ever vote against what they BELEIVE are their own interests,

I just think it's very common that people not fully understand the policies they support and all the consequences... and sometimes people just have f'd up priorities (ie the "I don't care if the president kills the economy or starts 2 wars as along as he's anti-abortion" crowd).

Unfortunately, as the OP states, there are some very well funded groups that have the goal of confusing them.

[HiPointDem]

11. +1

[Wild_Dog]

32. It is all about the goal of confusing them

Study George Lakoff

[hughee99]

35. Every time I try to read his stuff, I keep thinking of Elephants. n/t

[kctim]

10. Why do some people THINK they know

what is in everybody else's best interest?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. Is having clean water and clean air in everyone's best interest? nt

[HiPointDem]

17. no. not in the corporatists' interest. if there's universal clean water, who will pay for

corporate water? if the air is clean in every neighborhood, who will pay to live upwind of the dirty
coal plant?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. But eventually they'll run out of that. They'll end up covered in their own shit. Unless

they can move to another livable planet. So in the end. Whether they admit to it or not. They share a common interest with us the unwashed masses. They may not care right now but at some point rich people can't piss clean water or fart clean air. At least not yet.

[HiPointDem]

22. no they won't. kill the underclass, problem solved. the history of the ruling class is written in

massacres and bloodletting, what's another one?

power never gives up power willingly.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

24. Wait wait wait. You're saying if the water becomes polluted beyond consumption

and the air unbreathable these people will somehow still live? They're just rich powerful douchebags not super beings. The is the first time in our history where the ruling class has the capacity to damage the environment beyond repair. When I say that I mean for the human and other species. The planet will still be here.

[kctim]

18. Depends at what cost

Nice dodge from the economic and social interests that were brought up in the OP though.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

21. I replied directly to your silly little comment. Which by the way didn't address dick.

There things that affect all of us. It's this kind of selfish short sighted thinking that's gotten us to this point. It isn't about THINKING someone knows better. "Durp, you eggheads with yer fancy booklerin' and shit...."

"At what cost??!!". WTF does that even mean?

Nice teabagger sounding response. You never disappoint.

[kctim]

27. My comment wasn't the OP now was it?

Of course there are things that affect all of us and for the most part, most of us agree on what those things are. What people differ on is the solutions.

You really can't comprehend 'At what cost?' Let's take health care reform. Some want government run health care and others aren't willing to give up the individual rights it will cost to have it. Clean air? We all want clean air, but not all are willing to alter their lifestyle to such a dramatic degree in order to achieve the enviromental nuts definition of clean air.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

28. I wasn't replying to the OP was I? I was addressing your broad brush comment.

What individual rights? You think people with HMOs get to exercise their individual rights. What a bunch of nonsense.

I can comprehend clearly where you were headed with it. I just wanted you to continue to out yourself. It's sad yet funny. You seem to be unable to comprehend that when the air has enough pollutants to make entire communities sick or the water becomes undrinkable. There is no lifestyle.... because you fucking die.

"environmental nuts definition" I'm not aware of that definition. I do have a feeling you pulled it out of your ass.

[Wild_Dog]

34. ""Durp, you eggheads with yer fancy booklerin' and shit...."

You don't think, just feel and believe you can feel the right answer without thinking.

[Romulox]

13. It's an argument that assumes its premise; in what way are NAFTA (or the upcomming TPP)

"in the working class's best interest"?

The very framing of the question is both self-congratulatory and utterly lacking in introspection.

it's that there's no one left to really make the economic case to them in the first place.

Indeed, they are hostile to anyone even asking about these issues... "Would you prefer Romney?" is the best they seem to offer.

[HiPointDem]

14. they are completely hostile, and anti-worker. and the 'workers are soooo stuuuuupid' take is

guaranteed to alienate.

[Romulox]

38. After your BIZARRE attacks on me, I no longer believe you are sincere in this matter. nt

[MadHound]

33. Because, at least according to Democrats,

It is the lesser of two evils.

[TheKentuckian]

36. For most people that is the only option.

One may make a choice worse than the other but in any event there will be considerable efforts against their interests.

You can't play labor party when every time we get into power we are literally itching to put a new "free trade" agreement in place and took an epic meltdown to get off the deregulation bandwagon and then only to a degree.

Hell, it was like the first order of business was to go after the teachers, second was shelving card check and union supports, next thing we know we are leading the charge benefits traded for in years of painful concessions, then on to freezing pay for Federal workers, and then on to push Bush's stalled "free trade" deals before getting to work in earnest on a new secret, super "free trade" deal.

All the while we've had several Democratically initiated austerity commissions proposing all kinds of nonsense with all kinds of concessions offered, saved by TeaPubliKlan intransigence until finally an automatic trigger promises to make a start and the banging away can continue after the election. "Eat your peas" isn't a big seller.

You also can't be a labor party and be openly disdainful of it or give the impression that turning wrenches, or working the assembly line, or being a tradesman is lesser or not a career. Even the constant focus on college degrees probably is a turn off, even for those who value a higher education. There is Yuppie-centric air that has been cultivated and it doesn't connect and allows the party of the wealthy to talk folksy, chop wood, go hunting, drive trucks, and talk about God and actually make a better connection though it isn't a millimeter deep.
Many voters failing to see a definitive difference to their lives will vote for the person they identify with regardless of wonky policy proposals (that sound like a screw job or are confusing) that are both essential and promise to change nothing, soaring rhetoric, or how fiercely fingers are pointed (even when deservedly so).

[HiPointDem]

37. +1.

[Romulox]

39. Democrats, including the President, support TPP. Might as well go firebag it with Romney!

(You see, insincere and mind-numbing deflections are easy to deploy!)