posted by Sam Richards
It’s unfortunate that this story is written only with examples of liberals not being able to convince conservatives because the latter are not thinking straight. There are an equal number of examples of conservatives not being able to get through to the “misguided liberals” because such purportedly progressive thinkers can’t get outside their locked mental cages of short-sighted intellect.
Here would be an example: Think about how so-called “liberals” spend so much time questioning the defense-security-war-aggression policies of the United States, policies that lead their government into actions and interventions in other countries that are harmful and sometimes criminal. Here I’m not just talking about “illegal” wars but also the sale and distribution of weapons that kill innocent people (like landmines), subsidizing our farmers so that we can dump cheap rice in places like Haiti (and thereby impoverish Haitian farmers in the process), and so on. Most activists at peace and protest rallies are liberal-minded and most of them never give a thought to the myriad ways in which their day-to-day actions help keep this unjust system in place or how they personally would protest loudly and vigorously if their leaders suddenly decided to rectify some of the unjust policies that they march on Washington, DC to change. When the price of rice doubles, for example, or thousands of family farms go under in the southeastern United States, the protest chants would simply change to call out the U.S. government for not caring about its own people—even though Haitian farmers would be dancing in the streets.
Read the article: “Why Do People Often Vote Against Their Interests?”
I agree with a lot of the ideas in this article. I think that the main reason we still see poeple voting against their best interests is the importance and pride placed upon whether your a democrat or a republican. Many millions of Americans live their life based upon their political parties ideology, for instance, buying a paper in line with political affiliation. Whilst this is understandable, i think the stubbornness associated with supporting a certain party has led to many voting along party lines for all decisions they are required to make, regardless of logic and reason, simply as a result as their political affiliation. I think this has been highlighted in the healthcare debate, as many Americans are wholeheartedly against a policy that is clearly more beneficial to them, on an individual level.
[Reply]
Usually people who are strong conservatives or strong liberals tend to stick to their side on most issues, whether it makes sense for them to or not. I would have assumed that facts would persuade voters over stories, and I wish I saw more examples of this being the case. In the article it kind of only attacks Bush for something he said, and it seems that it was telling you that if you agree with him then you are an idiot. People who are hardcore liberal or conservative will support their fellow side, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens even in non-political battles.
[Reply]
I agree that people that neglect changes are the ones stuck in their old ways and don’t know any better. What I also don’t understand is why people put themselves in political categories and have generalized opinions for every topic of discussion. When I look at a topic like health care I look at it from my point of view and what I believe would be the best outcome. I don’t go by my political guidelines and then decide. People need to think outside the box but think from within their hearts. March to your own beat, don’t let others influence your opinion, do what you believe in
[Reply]
I think there are two central issues at heart within this article, more than just the mundane battle of finger pointing between democrats and republicans. First being, our society being primarily republic OR democratic with a non-existent middle ground; and second the difficulties that exist with getting people engaged in society and public issues.
The issue I see with the polar republican and democratic viewpoints is the fact that most people don’t view problems consistently in one way. What I mean is people don’t fit to the cookie cutter image of a “republican” or “democrat.” Surely some do, which is why the system still works, but not everyone fits under the general umbrellas. The dictionary defines a member of the Republican Party to have viewpoints that are: favoring a conservative stance, limited central government, and a strong national defense.” Which contrasts the definition of a member of the Democratic Party who: follow a liberal program, tending to promote a strong central government and expansive social programs. After reading the two definitions it’s clear to see that there is some middle ground in between these conflicting political positions, and if there’s anything that’s to be taken from sociology it’s that there are similarities amongst people but always exceptions. Yes, there are other political parties such as libertarians, socialists, independents, or those in the green party. Unfortunately our system, for some reason, stunts the growth of these parties. Maybe because our government has been largely democratic or republican since its birth, and the sheer strength of these parties make it difficult for smaller groups to grow.
Stemming from the aforementioned issue is the lack of civic engagement. Perhaps one of the reasons people feel less than inspired to become actively involved in political debates and politics is because of the inability to identify with a strong political party; if someone considers themselves part of the green party (for example) it could be much more difficult for him/her to successfully push their political agenda within the government verses a republican or democrat. But mostly I attribute the unmotivated public to personal issues, like not believing one person can make a difference and giving up on the government, which causes one to become paralyzed.
Is it difficult for one person to have a huge impact? Surely. But there is power in numbers, and once someone voices their opinion often times the voices of others shout out as well in support. Granny D (Dorris Haddock), for instance, is one woman who redefined what it is to be an American. She walked across America as a 89 year old woman to prove a point that a voice can be heard and share her opinion on the campaign finance reform bill.
Ideally American citizens will feel the power they rightfully have and be able to voice it no matter the party they’re affiliated with.
[Reply]
This has always been a point of contention when it came to me and politics. It seems that no matter what choice you ultimately end up making, it’s never a very good one. In Prof. Richards example for instance, we see what we consider to be “generally liberal minded people” voting for individuals that will end up supporting acts that run in direct opposition to their way of thinking. To be absolutely fair of course, the same could be said of generally conservatively minded people, after all one of the hall marks of conservatives thought is the idea of small government and reduced spending. Yet the last conservative president presided over one of the biggest increases in both government size and spending in modern history. This is a sad reality of the political system of the United States. No matter how much we may wish for it to be otherwise, we live in country where we never really get what we are promised. Politicians are always playing the game, always attempting to appeal to the most eligible voters possible. As a result, no politician can ever truly aspire to adhere completely to their beliefs. They will inevitably make compromises for the sake of reelection. Some of this isn’t their fault, the American public has made it well know our love for the “race.” This is only compounded by the twenty-four hour news cycles, which makes it such that politicians are being monitored constantly. They must always worry about reelection because from the day their elected till the next race, their every action is being watched and judged. But that’s beside the point, whatever the cause we have to deal with never being really sure what the people we elect will do. This has, for me personally, lead to a growing dissatisfaction with the way politics is run. Personally, I’ve been told that my set of beliefs is more in line with the libertarian line of thinking than anything else, something I was fine with, on paper the libertarian party sounds very nice, generalizing a bit they’re a group which is fiscally conservative yet socially liberal, focusing especially on the expansion of civil rights for all. The problem is of course that you will likely never find a member of the party that loyally abides by the doctrine. The local libertarian candidate from my home town for instance took a strong stance against immigration rights and gay marriage in an attempt to woo over conservative voters. It’s the same with all parties and it’s slowly wearing away at my enthusiasm for the process. I suppose however that this almost unavoidable in a society as media saturated as ours, I can only hope that in the future we as a country become a little less partisan, if only so that politicians can be open and honest about their beliefs.
[Reply]
As we have seen in the past subsidies generally have an adverse effect on the market they are targeted to help. I am a staunch capitalist and rarely support any type of government aide. These "hand outs" are what's burring our country in debt. It's pretty to think about helping people and living in a perfect world in harmony but the truth is life is not fair. It is baffling to me that an organization that prints money can be broke but we are. I do not have the answers but I understand how the markets work and the basic concept of winners and losers. I am not taking Pat Roberson's side and saying that Haiti is cursed because they made a deal with the Devil and I commend the aide work the US is doing there…it's basic humanity. However on a larger scale we need to get back to basic capitalism-supply and demand-no one is too big to fail. The American dream is dead…move back home with your parents and stock pile as much cheap rice as you can get your hands on…and if things get really bad we may have to elect Glenn Beck in 2012. For further info read Sara Palins book or better yet stop ready and just do everything Bill O'reily tells you to.
[Reply]
In the BBC article, a few things stuck out for me.
I oppose the healthcare reform because I would be paying for services that I am not using, and I certainly cannot afford that because if I cannot afford it then it will not get paid for. If I think something will hurt me further than I am already hurting then I am not going to wholeheartedly pursue it. Maybe promoting the idea in Texas simply is not getting across to them since they seem to be content with such overall little coverage.
I definitely does make people angry if they think they are being made to make a decision. When in reality if the government wanted to enact health care reform they would not have given Americans the choice, and simply said that it is a necessary step in the right direction. Saying that Americans have a choice may make it seem like they are part of the initiative and hence can only blame themselves for what happens with it, then the government is not really getting what they want. No choice will ever make everyone happy, but that is why intelligent choices sometimes just need to be made for the benefit of the whole. It is hard to change things that have stayed the same for so many years, but that is definitely where it takes educating others (conservatives and liberals) about the issue and not the emotions behind it. Stick to the facts; do not try to sway people with bogus numbers and sob stories because that irresponsible. Yes, constituents do not like being treated like they know nothing; hit us with the hard facts and if we care to know the meaning behind the words then we will look into it. At the same time, if you use too many ambiguous words, then you could lose us. Things should be self explanatory or you are not pitching it correctly.
I went to the Howard Dean and Karl Rove Healthcare Debate. I was there to pick up on fallacies made by the politicians. I was writing down statements every two minutes from both sides. There was not a winner; and I hope that more people went for entertainment rather than a decision. The debaters even said how these debates at schools are just fun for them to argue back and forth. The person with the better stories that touched peoples hearts did get loud responses from the audience. Some people were even crazy enough to get angry and start cursing towards those on stage. Their opinions would have been heard better in another place.
Overall, do not try to assume that poor people do not know what they are talking about just because they disagree with what you think. Take a step back and try to consider where they are coming from; Ask them even! Knowing both sides to an issue, even when you feel strongly towards one side, makes you a more accurately opinionated individual. After all, if you cannot back up why you believe one thing, why do you believe in it at all?
[Reply]
I found this article very interesting and funny. I’m not even lying, after reading this I immediately thought of my family. A lot of the older generations in my family are very opposed to Obama and his healthcare plan. They say that they understand what the new policy will entail and yet they refuse to listen to anything that he actually says and instead listens to the talking heads on Fox News. If you couldn’t tell, my family comes from a very, white conservative background. With that said, I understand and yet don’t understand where they’re coming from. I understand the cynicism that comes along with a president who promises everything good. I do understand not being able to trust that same someone when he’s not necessarily following through on those promises. But, I don’t understand why they never give him or his policies a chance. It would be unreasonable for the American public to believe the Obama could sweep in and change the decrepit economy overnight, and I really think that people who originally voted for him, thought that. I think until this generation and those same people who are fighting against these new policies, totally understand what it is that is being propose, there will always be those old ladies shaking her fist and making obscenely hostile faces.
[Reply]
I chose to respond to this article because it is something I feel very strongly about. I have always had a strong interest in politics, and after taking a media and democracy class last semester I have many strong feelings. I strongly agree with the author of the article. It is a sad truth, but most voters base their decisions on feelings rather then facts. If a politician is able to simplify a topic for voters, then they will most likely vote for him/her over the competition. I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that most of the population isn't as educated as they should be, or that they truly don't care enough to research it. In my media and democracy class we talked about sound bite news. I feel like this is very relevant, because the American people tend to have a very short attention span. If a topic takes more then thirty seconds to explain, then the people will not be interested in it. Watching the news, it is very evident that the media executives have discovered this secret. A lot of times they show news clips that are almost completely insignificant, but that play to peoples emotions. A news story that hits the viewers in the heart is almost always more effective than ones that hits viewers in the head. It is as if the American public works hard all day and comes home not wanting to think anymore. It could also be that emotions are just the name of the game. We have all seen the great success of reality shows in this country. People want something that they can emotionally react to instead of something that they have to think about and evaluate. I really hope that over the years the American people will learn to research topics instead of basing their voting decisions on emotions only. This is my dream, but I highly doubt things will change any time soon.
[Reply]
Why do people waste their time with politics? It is the most senseless shit of all time. The only thing politics are good for is starting riots, which is exactly what the people of our generation is going to have to do if we wanna correct anything that’s gone wrong. As much as it sucks, its our generation that has to deal with our parents generation fucking up big time. Of course that’s our fault though. Think about that for a second. Someone else fucks up and we have to deal with the reprimands. Now tell me why you support some sort of political party.
[Reply]
As an initial response to the title of the article, I feel as though in general, people do vote for their interests. Why would someone vote for something they don't believe in? When dealing with politics, people fail to realize that they need to pay more attention to the method in which the politicians are trying to sway them to their side. If you call yourself a Republican, Democrat, or whatever political group, you should already know the basis of what the group believes in and how strongly you fall on the scale of believing in it. Someone can be completely against abortion, but make an exception when it comes to cases of rape and abuse. One thing about human nature is that people can be indecisive even when they feel strongly about something just because society spins it into a contradictory thing. If you care about politics, do your research. Don't formulate your opinion based on someone else's. That's where the politicians will win. They can contradict your belief, but state it in a way that sounds as if it relates to yours. Of course, with every political group, you won’t believe every stance there is on a major topic, but it serves you better to realize that and formulate a strong opinion whether it's with your group or not. I'm not saying that politics is the best thing, but don't politicians have a right to approach various topics as if the audience does not know anything about it. To give concrete facts is the best way to start off because you speak the truth, and can also help someone if they have no knowledge on the topic. Many people have an emotional bond to an issue and on the other side, don’t fully understand the facts of why the issue is taken heavily in the public. In a way, it seems like Thomas Frank is saying there is a major problem with people who have an emotional attachment to a politician or political group. There is nothing wrong with having that emotional attachment; it's just that people rely too heavily on their feelings and leave the thinking up to the politicians. Yes, the politician should be doing some massive contemplation on the issues, but that goes double for the citizens who choose be involved. There are questions that should arise when supporting a person, like "how much do they really care about me as an individual?" or "in what ways are there actions going to make a difference in my life as well as others?" Politicians do have a tendency to take their voters for granted. They are enjoying a game of monopoly while we the people are being bought and sold for their satisfaction in winning. How do you prevent yourself from voting for an issue you don’t believe in? Do your homework and know the facts.
[Reply]
Additional blog #1
People today amaze me so much. We are always saying how we want change. We say how we deserve change. However, when it comes down to actually being the change that we want to occur, we don’t have the heart to go through with anything.
Come on people, the government is not always right about everything. They are people just like us. Their problems may not be exactly like each individual throughout the world, but believe me; they have to deal with certain issues just like me and you. I know that sometimes, we may feel as though our voices will never be heard. We feel like our opinions will not count or matter! But guess what, THEY DO!!!!!!!!! The people of the government voices are not stronger or more important than ours. Never just agree with the government because you feel that your voice does not count. Never stop voting for what you believe in because it may seem as if the government may know more. We are the people! We have a voice! LETS USE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
First of all everyone do things in their favor, liberal or conservative, they do not give a crap about of anyone else, the example you used with landmines is a great example but I can think of many more related to conservatives and liberals, the system we have is far from perfect, in fact it is very corrupted. Whoever has money passes the laws they want and whoever has connections get to the top, it is that simple , unfortunately most people have neither and they end up getting screwed over. I really believe that this whole liberal and conservative is just a way the we can divide ourselves even more , like we do in religions and races and all that great stuff.
[Reply]
I both agree and disagree with the theories in this article. First I do think that there are a lot of voters who feel that when some things are explained to them they are being talked down to. I don’t feel that this is the case in most situations but a lot of hard headed individuals might feel this way. One of the reasons for this could be the same mentality that a lot of children have when they disagree with their parents because of the juvenile mentality to blindly challenge authority. In no way am I saying to everyone should trust or in any way agree with the government all the time everyone is going to have things that they agree and disagree with.
I don’t agree with the article in the way that the entire article is one sided and that seems to be how just about everyone in Washington is they are either republican or democrat there is no middle ground when most of the American public is some ware in the middle. The biggest problem I can see with the great divide in Washington is that both sides are so stubborn and unwilling to compromise that all they do is butt heads and this is why whenever the majority shifts between the parties whichever one gets the majority it seems that all they do is try to get their agenda passed as quickly as possible. This seems to cause the other party to do the exact thing and hurry to get their issues dealt with as soon as the power shifts again and this reoccurring cycle really gets us no ware. The article suggests that the voters are the problem but I don’t feel that that is entirely accurate there still is a problem with having two parties that are so adamant with having their own way that a lot of real issues are slipping through the cracks.
But the government officials are in office for a reason, they were voted for. But lately it seemed that the voting was based on more emotions and less than the issues Both with Obama and in Massachusetts with Scott Brown. Many voters had said that some of the main reasons for voting for Obama was that they were displeased with Bush and when Ted Kennedy’s senate seat opened up it seemed that a lot of people in the state were fed up with the democrats and a long standing democratic senate seat was given to a republican. With me not being familiar with the specific politics in Massachusetts I can’t say that this was a case of voters merely voting with their emotions and not with the issues specific to their state. So the problem is not with just the voters but the extremists that are in office now and voters making uninformed or misinformed decisions.
[Reply]
This article has some really eye opening information in it that prior to reading I never really considered. The idea that people support different things for the simple reason that they do not want their interests decided for them by politicians is a very different approach that I never heard before. The lack of trust in politicians today makes for this idea to be interesting and very likely. Another thing the article touched on that I found interesting is that when an idea is explained through numbers and in depth data the public feels like there being talked down to. When this happens people are likely to not support an idea even if it benefits them. The overall feeling I have after reading this is that the information is not as important as the way you present it to get support for certain issues.
[Reply]
I feel that there are many political parties that have a hypocritical nature. Also, I don’t like the fact that people force you to choose between being one group or the other. I personally have different feelings about certain political topics that can be considered republican and democratic. I also don’t think that there are certain topics such as abortion and others that cannot be so cut and dry in this situation. People forcing us to pick a political party only forces more rifts in the U.S. peoples and I don’t think that it would be a bad idea to allow people to pick and choose their ideals.
[Reply]
I found this article interesting because it is so true, people often say one thing and then do another. We do it everyday, between our shopping habits to our routines and everything in between. Many people complain about how Walmart's practices are so unethical but then you later find out, that's where they shop. They hate how Walmart is undermining small-business America but cannot shy away from their unbeatable prices. We truly can be hypocrites when it comes down to it. People can ask for Nationalized Healthcare but then do not want increased taxes. That's the same thing, you can't have both.
[Reply]
This problem, as are most other problems with our current system of government, is not Democratic or Republican. It is systemic. It is our political system itself that is so corrupt. In the broadest sense, I guess you could say that I support health reform, if done right. But when the bill is written by the staffers and lobbyists who pay politicians to get their agenda on the drawing table, the legislation is garbage and the republic has effectively been dismantled.
This writer of this article clearly supports the legislation, because it is basically saying that these voters should accept something because it is for their own good. Well, the voters fear the introduction of a massively expensive new piece of legislation, with plenty of things that could potentially go wrong such as cost overruns or the need for massive new borrowing and levels of debt, especially in economic times as difficult as today and ESPECIALLY considering the level of indebtedness in America on all levels from consumer debt to the national debt. They also don't expect that they will be benefited by this as much as the perceived potential harm. And judging by governments at all levels' track record of creating unintended consequences, people are more scared than ever. Not only that, but when politicians dumb down their speeches they make to the public, they are belittling their constituency and simultaneously withholding critical information that the public should know about. Given the fact that Social Security and Medicare are unfunded to the tune of trillions of dollars, these people have lost faith in the ability of government to serve their constituencies. They have every right to be scared.
[Reply]
I have often wondered how our country would run if our nation’s stay-at-home moms were in political control and making decisions. Or even a stay-at-home dad, whose numbers are on the rise, would be similar. To live off one income in this country is extremely difficult. The first thing a mom or dad has to do is cut all the unnecessary spending. This is not popular with the kids who want to spend, spend, spend; however, it must be done in order to keep the family out of financial ruin! This is not republican or democrat based. It is survival and when it comes to the family income it is more like a dictatorship! Not fair. The kids lobby for more money constantly, but parents can’t give in if they don’t have the money to give. Not that I am saying we need to go to a dictatorship. I just think we need people leading the country that are not politicians. We need everyday people who are use to scraping to get by making decisions because they are the ones who know how to make things work. Maybe then we can stop pointing fingers and solve problems … or am I dreaming?
[Reply]
I really can't say i like politics as much as the next guy but the problem i see with this is that everything is inter-related. You can't do something nice without pissing someone off on the other end of the spectrum. Take the giving rice to Haiti in the time of crisis, the Haitian farmers begin to have problems selling because their is an over abundance, so prices will be low for a while and farmers will go out of business. Then as the stores deplete the prices will rise again and cause a strain on the farmers until there can be a balance again. In a world of politics and economy, it seems to make the most sense to step back and judge each decision before continuing. Sometimes the most sense would be to not even intervene with the problem as a whole, sometimes given proper advancements of aid would do better than to rush over and deposit tons of funds into something that will eventually ruin their own economy and be dependent on imported goods just like the US.
[Reply]
I would have to agree completely with Dr. Frank. Now I’m not saying that liberals always know what is right and aren’t able to convince conservatives that aren’t thinking straight. I’m simply saying that this has become a more consistent theme of modern American politics. Let’ s look at health-care for example. Texas is a great example. A state where approximately 67% of residents are insured and approximately 20% of children have no coverage whatsoever, opposes the healthcare bill by about 87%. Why? Because Texas is one of the most conservative, “deep-red” states that has been a cornerstone of the GOP for decades.
Are the people actually voting against the health-care bill or are they voting against a liberal president, whom most of them did not elect to office? I will let you decide, but my gut feeling suggests the latter is more true. Furthermore, explaining the complexities of the healthcare bill and the inefficiencies of the current damaged healthcare systems has angered many Americans who believe that the status-quo is sufficient, even though, inadvertently, they are paying a disservice to their own interests. I just wish that some of these hard-line right-wing radical conservatives would come to their senses, and start opening their minds to the issues, rather than being emotionally tied to political camps and ideologies.
[Reply]
To be honest, if people want to screw themselves over, by all means go for it. Personally however, when the screwing commences, I do not wish to be screwed over and done the butt as well. When other people are making decisions and voting on stuff, it not only affects them but also us. I do not understand the hesitation of so many of my fellow republicans but i can assure i am not happy with them. Putting this reform off is putting a lot of people in a some really shitty positions and is causing a lot of pain to people that are dieing because they are victims not to their illnesses but to a system that clearly does not care about the well being of a patient but how big there wallets are. Clearly our government is too busy fighting about the while situation, that nothing is getting done. Obama, i feel needs to start pissing people off and yelling anything! to get this shit organized. people want money, well you to give money and eventually in the long run money will be returned to you. so far nothing. thanks government for doing me up the butt.
[Reply]
I personally cannot stand talking about politics. I agree that many voters have no clue whatsoever in regards to what their party stands for and what they as voters are actually looking for in a government. I think that labels play too big of a role in the way Americans think about and relate to politics. They feel as if they need to be a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. The truth of the matter is that many voters lie somewhere in between the far left and the far right. It's a vicious cycle. Politicians are essentially forced to be completely left or right because if they're not, they won't get their party's vote or enough of anyone's votes for that matter. I really think this is a shame. Why can people not be on one side or the other?
On the other hand, if voters do not make politicians left or right, then politicians do not give Americans the choice to be diverse in their political views. Like I was saying earlier, many people do not completely agree with everything the Democratic Party or the Republican Party stands for or believes in, however, there isn't a candidate around that encompasses all that they themselves as a voter believe in, so they are forced to choose one or the other. I understand that if this were the case one person may not win the majority, however, I think it's something to be considered.
Another issue I have with American politics is that people often vote against a particular political party instead of voting for one that is more in tune to their own beliefs. For example, a die hard Republican voting against Obama, not because they disagree with his views, but simply because he's new and is a big advocate for change. Another example could be of a Democrat who voted for Kerry in the 2004 election simply because they didn't like Bush and wanted someone new in office. They might not have necessarily wanted Kerry either, but they would have settled for anyone else beside Bush. I think this is a hard habit for Americans to break. The Yankees don't suck just because you prefer the Phillies and Penn State isn't better than Michigan State simply because (even though both the Yankees and Penn State are just plain awesome anyway).
When it comes down to it, I think people should vote for who they want to vote for and for all the right reasons. Voters need to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of an argument and decide on the person that best represents the changes they wish to see for our country.
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I did feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are alot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they don't necessarily want a reform that could potentially help them. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working hard to support themselves in a non- socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving some money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision. And it goes both ways. Personally, the health care reform Obama's proposing would only hurt me and my family (in terms of money) but I understand where these people are coming from and why, despite its potential to help, they are still opposing it. And it's also important to point out that that goes both ways. There are many wealthy liberals who have nothing at all to gain from this reform, yet they still support it based on their values and ideals and what they would like to see happening in our society. Then the article movies to discussing "stories trumping facts" and how Obama should have immediately upon taking office blamed the state of our economy on Bush so that no one would think it was his (Obama's) fault…where did that come from?? I can't even comment on that its so out of place. I have to admit, I did enjoy Thomas Frank's comment that "It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.", but I think it's completely oversimplifying the many factors that go into a person's decision of who to vote for. Health care reform is just one small piece of the huge puzzle of issues that we face every day in America. It might be at the top of some people's list of issues that need to be addressed, and therefore it would greatly affect their voting style. But some people may find the myriad of other issues more important to them, and who they are going to vote based on their issues and can definitely outweigh how they might vote for a candidate if the issue was health care reform alone. It is not the voters' "preference for emotional engagement" or their resentment towards the "intellectual snobs" that cause them to vote a certain way, but rather a balance and weighing of their views on the economy as a whole, the war in Iraq, and their views on issues such as abortion and legalizing homosexual marriage, as well as so many other things.
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I did feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are alot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they don't necessarily want a reform that could potentially help them. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working hard to support themselves in a non- socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving some money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea-
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I did feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are alot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they don't necessarily want a reform that could potentially help them
[Reply]
Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working hard to support themselves in a non- socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving some money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision. And it goes both ways.
[Reply]
Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working hard to support themselves in a non- socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving some money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision
[Reply]
Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working hard to support themselves in a non- socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving some money on their medical expenses.
[Reply]
I read an earlier post that said that what's contained in this article is true. And I agree with him. Voters don't know what they are voting for, which is why it's sad that the uninformed are allowed to make the decisions for this country. Ask voters in America about the policies and beliefs of the officials that they elect, and you'll be greeted with blank stares; like you've just spoken jibberish. But ask that same voter what color the politician's skin is, what their major points are in their speeches, what their age is; they'll probably be able to answer you promptly. It doesn't matter what the politician stands for, what lies they spew in either direction. Say the word "CHANGE!" and people will follow when things aren't looking too hot.
I feel that a certain amount of questions should be answered at the beginning of the voting process if you want to vote your opinion. You're only allowed to have an opinion if it's a well educated one. Could you imagine how different the outcome would be if that were how things worked? A man with the speaking skills akin to someone like Hitler would most often not be elected, because people would not be allowed to blindly follow. We'd get rid of the fact that people jump on the nearest bandwagon, and move on to a more educated society; one where people would have to justify their opinions. IMAGINE THAT! I think the thought alone of having to back up what you believe in would scare some people to death.
Actually, the ideal system wouldn't allow you to pick which candidate you "thought" best fit what you believed in. What views you supported and what causes you backed. No, the ideal system would ask you those questions instead. "What are your views on abortion?" "What do you think of the war going on in Iraq?" "What do you think should be done about our failing healthcare system?" "What do you think about tax discounts for the wealthy? For the poor?" "What do you think of the welfare system in America?" Your answers to those questions would determine which candidate you vote for; based on their policies and past voting in the Senate or House.
So that's my solution to the problem to electing officials who shouldn't be there based on what the overall public believes in. Hope it helps.
[Reply]
I definitely agree with this post. People should vote according to their beliefs, not along party lines. It's sort of like the theory, "if all your friends were doing crack cocaine, would you do it to?" HELL NO. If you don't think it's right, then you shouldn't support it. Doing crack can really mess up your life, and so can voting for a retard. People get so tied up into political affiliation because it gives them an identity and they can say "Hey, I'm Republican, look at all these people that think I'm cool because they're Republican too." People should form their own unique identity.
[Reply]
I definitely agree that most voters today are ignorant when making decisions at the polls. For example, in the 2009 election between John McCain and Barack Obama, many people showed up to vote in the polls because the media portrayed it as a “historic election.” It was indeed a historic election, but voters were swayed by factors other than what the candidates said. Many people voted for Barack Obama because of the way he spoke to a crowd and had them rallying behind him, but didn’t pay attention to what he was saying. I guess the saying holds true that it’s not what you say, but how you say it.
[Reply]
I think that that people often vote against their own interests maybe partially due to "politicians talking down to them" but that's definitely not the only problem. To me it's because of many reasons. I think people love to hate somebody else. They look for somebody to be wrong so that they can be right in return. I feel like most of the time, however, people just don't pay attention! "Ignorance is bliss" to me is such a US concept and frankly it pisses me off. I mean I recently overheard a conversation from someone saying "I don't know why I always hear about other countries economies, I don't care about anybody else's economy but my own" and I was just itched the wrong way and to this day I wish I had said something. I wanted to say "do you know where your taxes go? Do you know what globalization is? Do you know where 90% of the things you own come from? OPEN YOUR EYES!" I think if people did their own research rather than relying on campaigns and limited media coverage, maybe use….oh i don't know…that thing called the internet. Check out what our politicians have really been up to, what our country is actually looking to do (which may not necessarily be what they're saying), and maybe you'll end up voting for something or someone you agree with. At the same time, I'm willing to bet people will vote against "their own interest" because some may argue that they're lying anyway. It's crazy the things you hear people say but I think if people truly try to better inform themselves, maybe READ A BOOK, USE THE INTERNET (AND OTHER NEWS SOURCES), AND LISTEN TO WHAT'S BEING SAID AROUND THE WORLD!
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are a lot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they necessarily want a reform that could possibly help them. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working to support themselves in a non-socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision. And it goes both ways. Personally, the health care reform Obama is proposing would only hurt me and my family (in terms of money) but I understand where these people are coming from and why, despite its potential to help, they are still opposing it. And it's also important to point out that that goes both ways. There are many wealthy liberals who have nothing at all to gain from this reform, yet they still support it on their values and ideals and what they would like to see happening in our society. Then the article moves to discussing "stories trumping facts" and how Obama should have immediately upon taking office blamed the state of our economy on Bush so that no one would this it was his (Obama's) fault… where did that come from? I can't even comment on that its so out of place. I have to admit, I did enjoy Thomas Frank's comment that "It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.", but I think it's completely oversimplifying the many factors that go into a person's decision of who to vote for. Health care reform is just one small piece of the huge puzzle of issues that we face every day in America. It might be at the top of some people's lists of issues that need to be addressed, and therefore it would greatly affect their voting style. But some people may find the myriad of other issues more important to them, and who they are going to vote based on their issues and can definitely outweigh how they might vote for a candidate if the issue was health care reform alone. It is not the voters' "preference for emotional engagement" or their resentment towards the "intellectual snobs" that cause them to vote a certain way, but rather a balance of weighing of their views on the economy as a whole, the war in Iraq, and their views on issues such as abortion and legalizing homosexual marriage, as well as so many other things.
[Reply]
I had the opportunity to see Ben Stein speak on Wednesday, and one of the points he raised was that the idea of healthcare reform has been around for a long time. In fact, he personally helped write a proposal while working for President Nixon. The difference was, that under Steins proposal, if you were too poor to get health care, the government would pick up the tab. What a GEM. Obamas plan was to run health care completely, removing the plans that the majority of Americans are satisfied with. Americans who know that health care is expensive but gladly pay it to avoid rationed health care and long lines to see a doctor. The most recent health care proposal was disgusting. Why take my healthcare from me when I am not complaining about it? Obama tried to strongarm the bill through, and got his ass kicked, and thank God. Liberals didnt want to fix healthcare, they wanted a massive expansion of government control over our lives. No thanks. Individual freedoms are fading fast enough as it is.
[Reply]
Red vs. Blue, Conservative vs. Liberal, it sounds more like the semi-finals of a boxing match than a democratic nation deciding on which would be the best route to better the nation as a whole. Democracy is defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system1”. So my question then would be where are the people?
Sure they attend these townhall meetings for a more personal debate environment, but very little seems to be accomplished as these meetings as minds have already been made up before they ever arrive. There is definitely something about telling someone he/she needs help and how they should fix it that rubs most people the wrong way. No one wants to be told what to do rather they want to tell you what should be done. But what baffles me is when clearly the people have no clue how to fix the problem and yet attack the very government they have elected to work for them for coming up with the solutions to problems placed at their dinner tables. Or maybe people just generally love to complain, or it could be as simple as “the more we talk, the more democratic we are.” Sometimes there is more power in thoughtful silence when one is quick to think and slow to speak than loud unguided madness and unnecessary defensiveness.
The Obama administration is doing the job they were elected to do and I get the sense that some people have yet to realize the election is over. I do believe in a people’s right to question their government, but let these questions have some sort of reasoning or at least logical order to back them up. There is nothing more dangerous that a child in an adult body reeking havoc in adult business. Conservatives need to listen more and hear less, whilst Liberals need to be more open minded to what they consider “closed minded” and less critical of those that do not think they way they do. Both sides are, to one degree or another, guilty of short-sightedness and judgment. Yes, conservatives are the obvious scapegoat, but then again for a scapegoat to exist a judge has to be in place and this is where closed-minded liberals come bearing bondage in freedom packaging.
Based on the past elections, it seems emotion governed the population as well as the candidates more than common sense. Everyone, myself included, would always prefer someone who agreed with us, but then again how would we grow and expand if there was never anyone come with opposing ideas that make us evaluate why we believe what we believe. The United States needs as self-check moment to figure out what it really needs and it needs to let the people it has elected to govern do the job they were elected to do by those that chose them and accommodate those that do not necessarily think as they do.
1Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
[Reply]
Politics is an extremely controversial that so many people have extremely STRONG opinions on. While I do understand that most politicians have their own views, it is impossible for them to satisfy every need of the citizens. The hardcore democrats and die hard republicans will never ever agree on anything. Since there is no way for everyone to be satisfied, we should try to at least do the best we can. By this, we should have certain standards for voting. I remember last election many of my friends just decided to vote on who their friends were voting for. No one knew any background info on the candidates. Some type of education program should be a must to help better educate the future of the US.
[Reply]
Politics is an issue of controversy in its self. Politicians always spring on controversy with the type of ignorant, narrow, and dramatic opinions that they choose to share. I decided a long time ago to never get worked up with Politics because it leaves you ready to smack the lights out of someone and it is not worth it. Watching the presidential debates only invites me to think about my own views of the situation or aspects posed. I listen to both parties, giving no advantage to a certain group and see which individual response came close to the view that I have. I have a pen and paper in hand and grade each response based on how I feel and at the debate I have an idea of who to believe and who I think is garbage. After that I go and read about both candidate before making a decision of who want to vote for.
I think many people go into this voting business to satisfy their parents or friends. But in actuality that should not play a factor. The government trust us to be able to carefully choose who we think will be suitable based on what "you" think not how your aunt Lucy sees it or your boyfriend see it. I don't think everyone is on the same page on how to find the right candidate for them. The whole point of Republican and Democratic is not called for. Its just a means of financial support seriously. People need to realize that an start voting for a purpose.
[Reply]
Why do voters vote against their interests? I don't know but I would tell you why I would do it or why my grandparents did it. Certain things outweigh others. You will never find your ideal candidate. You will never find someone who agrees with you whole-heartedly on every issue. Its the same thing with the friends you choose. Each has their own viewpoint and challenges your ideas and beliefs. But at the end of the day you pick the friends that you know are good people, the ones you feel that if a sticky situation would arise they would be there for YOU no matter if they believe in the things you do or not. I think its somewhat the same with politics. I think you vote for the person who resonates with you. The one you feel is a good person and who will at least try and make the best decisions. Its the human factor–the emotional factor that comes into play when voting for a certain person. Someone you find something in common with even if its not everything.
[Reply]
Good old’ politics (such a conundrum), we meet again. The general public and politics is like water and oil or a game of follow the leader in my eyes. There are many people who claim their political party based on what they hear and not on the concrete fact. Such as, people join the Republican Party because they believe that party supports the upper class and people join Democrats because they support the middle class. There is some truth behind this theory but it’s not 100 percent true nor isn’t enough information to make such a decision. That’s key right there, “enough information”. People don’t hold enough information when it comes to politics for all they know is what they believe and what they are told. Where is the research? Where is the physical evidence that proves the “truth” that is being spoken? Research is the key to overcoming politics and returning this system back to the people of the nation. Us as people run the government and we have forgotten this, we allow these people “who represent us” talk to us as if we are children and sweeten us up to gain our approval. Politics is a corrupt system that is based on gaining an advantage that benefits the individual at hand first, 6and then comes the people they represent. We allow this to happen because we don’t want to hear hardcore facts. We’d rather hear the fluff that appeals to our individual opinions and we flock to the individual who is able to catch our interest. In return we shy away from the person with hardcore facts and speak directly to us and not down on us. We generally see this person as the fake and dismiss him and in all actuality he/she is the one that has our interests at heart. In reality the system has become so “dirty” that with adequate research and a knowledge base it is hard to net out the fake from the real. So in a way voters are rendered helpless in a way. Besides gaining knowledge on the topics being presented, knowledge of the representative themselves need to be done. We fail to see who these people actually are but acknowledge what they want us to see them as. The senseless decision making behind voting nowadays also comes from the increase of young voters. Don’t get me wrong, getting the young voters finally involved in politics is good in all, but they don’t actually know why they are voting. This is the fault of the pop culture today. The pop culture today is trying to get young people involved in politics with various slogans that many artists endorse and so one thus hoping to gain the attention of the young. The concept is solid but where they lack is the fact, there is no reason given as to why the young should vote. All you here is “get out and vote”, “your vote matters”, “your vote can make a difference”, okay yea sure but why does it matter, how will it make a difference? Concrete facts doesn’t seem to exist anymore, it’s as if society is based on the theory of appeal instead of actuality. Which in conclusion allows people to act without sense because as long as their ideals or emotions are appealed to they are contempt with what they receive, drowning them in a sense of denial. For when things turn ugly all they’re left saying is: he said, she said, or they promised. Overall we are giving more power to the system to control us in which we are the ones who are supposed to be controlling them.
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are a lot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they necessarily want a reform that could possibly help them. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working to support themselves in a non-socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision. And it goes both ways. Personally, the health care reform Obama is proposing would only hurt me and my family (in terms of money) but I understand where these people are coming from and why, despite its potential to help, they are still opposing it. And it's also important to point out that that goes both ways. There are many wealthy liberals who have nothing at all to gain from this reform, yet they still support it on their values and ideals and what they would like to see happening in our society. Then the article moves to discussing "stories trumping facts" and how Obama should have immediately upon taking office blamed the state of our economy on Bush so that no one would this it was his (Obama's) fault… where did that come from? I can't even comment on that its so out of place. I have to admit, I did enjoy Thomas Frank's comment that "It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.", but I think it's completely oversimplifying the many factors that go into a person's decision of who to vote for. Health care reform is just one small piece of the huge puzzle of issues that we face every day in America. It might be at the top of some people's lists of issues that need to be addressed, and therefore it would greatly affect their voting style. But some people may find the myriad of other issues more important to them, and who they are going to vote based on their issues and can definitely outweigh how they might vote for a candidate if the issue was health care reform alone. It is not the voters' "preference for emotional engagement" or their resentment towards the "intellectual snobs" that cause them to vote a certain way, but rather a balance of weighing of their views on the economy as a whole, the war in Iraq, and their views on issues such as abortion and legalizing homosexual marriage, as well as so many other things.
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were a bunch of ideas flying all over the place that were not even connected. Not to mention, I consider myself conservative so I feel like much of the criticisms thrown around in this article were aimed at me. But anyways, there are a lot of points to address in this article. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop acting like the American people are idiots just because they necessarily want a reform that could possibly help them. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands of people, but many of these people might also value individuals working to support themselves in a non-socialist society. They can choose that value over the possibility of saving money on their medical expenses. It's not a question of question of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision. And it goes both ways. Personally, the health care reform Obama is proposing would only hurt me and my family (in terms of money) but I understand where these people are coming from and why, despite its potential to help, they are still opposing it. And it's also important to point out that that goes both ways. There are many wealthy liberals who have nothing at all to gain from this reform, yet they still support it on their values and ideals and what they would like to see happening in our society. Then the article moves to discussing "stories trumping facts" and how Obama should have immediately upon taking office blamed the state of our economy on Bush so that no one would this it was his (Obama's) fault… where did that come from? I can't even comment on that its so out of place. I have to admit, I did enjoy Thomas Frank's comment that "It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.", but I think it's completely oversimplifying the many factors that go into a person's decision of who to vote for. Health care reform is just one small piece of the huge puzzle of issues that we face every day in America. It might be at the top of some people's lists of issues that need to be addressed, and therefore it would greatly affect their voting style. But some people may find the myriad of other issues more important to them, and who they are going to vote based on their issues and can definitely outweigh how they might vote for a candidate if the issue was health care reform alone. It is not the voters' "preference for emotional engagement" or their resentment towards the "intellectual snobs" that cause them to vote a certain way, but rather a balance of weighing of their views on the economy as a whole, the war in Iraq, and their views on issues such as abortion and legalizing homosexual marriage, as well as so many other things.
[Reply]
I had the opportunity to see Ben Stein speak on Wednesday, and one of the points he raised was that the idea of healthcare reform has been around for a long time. In fact, he personally helped write a proposal while working for President Nixon. The difference was, that under Stein’s proposal, if you were too poor to get health care, the government would pick up the tab. What a GEM. Obama’s plan was to run health care completely, removing the plans that the majority of Americans are satisfied with. Americans who know that health care is expensive but gladly pay it to avoid rationed health care and long lines to see a doctor. The most recent health care proposal was disgusting. Why take my healthcare from me when I am not complaining about it? Obama tried to strongarm the bill through, and got his ass kicked, and thank God. Liberals didn’t want to fix healthcare, they wanted a massive expansion of government control over our lives. No thanks. Individual freedoms are fading fast enough as it is.
My point is that I agree with the Sam on this one, the People will revolt against anything pushed on them. It was terrifying to watch the opposition to most powerful reform proposition possibly of our lifetime be silenced and helpless. Obama promised open debate, and instead we got a two thousand page document brewed behind doors and three days to read it.
More people need to realize the direct connection between socialized medicine and socialism. Not supporting health care reform makes you sound like a bad guy, but it was this WAY that people were opposed to. Standardizing doctor pay and appropriation of care is not the American way and the voters voted to preserve that way of life. Period. Voters are not stupid. They vote for what sounds like would be in their best interest. It is up to the politician to compose the method of conveying that idea. I don’t like the example used in the article saying that Gore lost the debate because of his use of numbers. His numbers weren’t CLEAR! If no one know what the fuck you are talking about expect to be picked on. Gore’s statement about healthcare premiums increasing used the numbers 18-47 percent. Instead of using vague data like that he could have threatened that premiums could increase by nearly fifty percent. People can visualize fifty percent much more easily than 18-47.
I believe that the majority of voters do vote on gut instinct and secondhand information from family and friends. However, I also believe that this is enough kick bills like the atrocious health care bill the fuck out of DC
[Reply]