|
Zonie63 -> RE: Voting. Ideals, or self-interest? (12/12/2012 4:39:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
On the recent welfare thread, Hillwilliam was pointing out that in his part of the world, it's everyday normal to see people who live their lives in multi-generational dependence on government poverty maintenance programs, driving around with Republican candidate bumper stickers.
At the other end, we have people born into lives of unimaginable wealth and privilege, flying their flags for Democrats who are promising to raise taxes on the wealthy.
This was described as, "hypocrisy," and while I can certainly understand that view of the phenomenon, I think it relies entirely on a flawed assumption about why people vote the way they do.
Is voting something to be considered purely from a personal, narrow, self-interest that looks only at what is best for you, in your life, right now, or, is it a decision that should be based on broader beliefs and ideals about the world we live in?
It really isn't a strict, "pick A or B," sort of question. There is going to be a balance, but where in the spectum of, greater good vs. me-me-me is the sweet spot?
I don't believe that everyone votes their pocketbook, as they might have personal values which might override any desire to make more money. I've learned never to assume why people make the voting choices they do.
I would say a certain percentage of voters make the choices they do out of tradition. ("My family has always voted [Republican/Democrat] so therefore I vote that way, too.") Their ideals are largely formulated the same way, through upbringing and culture.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of people are not so much voting for a candidate as much as against the other candidate, choosing the lesser of two evils. Voters may not like either one, but they have to pick, so they hold their nose and cast their ballot. To a certain extent, I think that voting for the lesser of two evils could be rightly considered "hypocrisy," but it seems to be rather prevalent in our political culture just the same.
My grandfather always said (and I used to believe it) that the Republicans were for the rich and the Democrats were for the working man, but I'm not so sure of that now. I've heard it said that the Democrats used to be the party of the working man, but now, they're the party of the non-working man.
I can also see where the wealthy, being in competition with each other, would try to use the parties to benefit their own personal interests and not so much the interests of "the wealthy" as a collective group. For example, if one could be assured of a lucrative government contract if the Democrats were elected, a few extra percentage points in taxes may not mean that much to a wealthy person. They'll still be wealthy and on top of the heap, so why should they really care that much? That would likely explain why some wealthy would vote Democratic. After all, they're Democrats, not Communists.
Likewise, Republicans are not monarchists or fascists, nor are they as cold-hearted and evil as some might portray them. Those who are poor or working class might see them in a different way and vote for them for reasons other than economic - because they likely don't believe the Democrats can do anything for them anyway. And they'd probably be right. To them, the government is just some snarly clerk, bureaucrat, or cop they have to deal with, and there's a huge disconnect between what the politicians say and what the lower classes actually have to deal with.
|
|
|
|
