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 felt a little bit puzzled after reading this article. There are some things I agree with in this article and there are some things that I don’t agree with. First I was thinking how ridiculous it is that someone would vote for someone who doesn’t support what they want. If someone wants new healthcare because they don’t have any and they can’t provide any for their family, wouldn’t this person vote for a president who is proposing a new health care plan?
However, it seems that people would vote for something that goes against their interests because many times people are unaware of what the candidate truly stands for, so they just vote for the person they like the most. Politics is very complex and there are many elements to it, many of which people just do not understand. Because of this, people tend to just vote for the person whose personality appeals to them the most. During the election, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were huge competitors who had huge supporters following them. It was a very big deal in our country to have a woman and a black man running for president. But considering the circumstances during this time in our country, with the horrible economy and how it almost seemed that our country was being run into the ground, it seemed more appealing to the citizens to have someone who could bring change and wasn’t just the typical middle aged white man. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who wanted to vote for either candidate because of what they stood for, but many people loved Obama or even Hillary because of the type of person they were and the fact that they liked this person.
But like I said before, I don’t necessarily agree with many things said in this article. At one point, the author claims that “if people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best. There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.” Personally I think that this quote is just making the public sound like idiots which is not true or fair. The public knows a lot more about politics than people think. If someone fully understands a candidate’s policies and this policy is in their best they won’t be stupid and vote for the opposite. Why would someone vote against a policy that they support and that’s in their own interest just because they don’t want to give in to the candidate or because they want to “rebel”. That’s just silly, and that’s why I personally disagree with this article. I don’t believe Americans are that stupid as this man claims. Someone who does understand politics and the policies proposed are going to vote for the person that supports their interests and the policy that benefits them the most. I don’t see or understand why he claims that someone would just do the opposite.
[Reply]
This article was interesting because I think its interesting to understand and hear how people view important issues. I was confused though, I feel that people that need the help the most are being too modest. I feel that people wont tell others when they need help, and they don’t want to receive the health care they actually need. I don’t know how I would react. I feel that many Americans are hypocritical about their views on issues in this country. I agree with what Sam said about liberals and how they question the defense that the government uses.
[Reply]
I hate politics because most people who speak about politics actually have no idea what they are talking about. They just have insignificant, ignorant opinions on matters that they hardly understand, and heard through the wire. That is the problem with our voters, and basically everyone in America. How about we just stop the adult drama of politics and begin thinking a little. People love to classify themselves as democrats or republicans, and even better, conservatives or liberals. And the majority of those people have NO idea what the terms actually mean, or where they stemmed from. Everyone is trying to make a dollar, so think about it, do any of them really care about what is better for this country? Most likely not. They just love money. I am not even going to attempt to speak about the Health Care Reform because all opinions do is piss people off with the opposing opinion. Why can't everyone just agree on something and stop being so damn dramatic. The "adults" of the U.S. are basically still in high school. Until they get out, we wont get anything done.
[Reply]
I completely agree with this article and I believe that too many voters are misinformed on the issues and listen to how a person is speaking than with what the politician is actually saying, myself included. I have seen youtube videos where someone goes around asking democrats, or republicans, questions about their own political candidates and what it means to be a liberal or conservative and they have no idea what the interviewer is talking about. They seem to vote for the same party time after time, even if they don’t agree or understand with their own policies simply for the fact that they are used to voting for one party and they want to be associated with either being a conservative or a liberal.
[Reply]
Arguing politics is always an issues with people and yes sometimes they do not know what they are talking about, blurt out things that are not really what they want. People want change in order to help make their life better. The change and issues of health care reform should be less or an argument and more of a solution and resolve. I personally believe people should fight for what they really believe and not go along with anything that might sound good in a loud voice in a room full of people all yelling and shouting. Many american are hypercritical in their views and must stick with anything that supports their wants and beliefs.
[Reply]
While I agree that it is unfair to blame the conservatives for not being able to get things done, I don’t think the solution is to turn around and blame the liberals. The two party system in America is very messed up because it has gotten to the point where people don’t think for themselves anymore. You either vote for what your party wants or you’ll be frowned upon. Sadly, when people align with a party, it is usually based purely on their own self interests. Not many Americans look at the big picture when government makes decisions Instead they complain about their taxes being raised when in fact raising taxes could be the best thing for America as a whole.
[Reply]
I agree with this article and I also agree with Sam's point that it goes both ways, in the side of the right and the side of the left. It seems to me that people in America, though they banter about wanting Washington to be non-partisan, are completely partisan a lot of times. They don't even know the crux of some issues and just decide "well if it is being proposed by Republicans, and I am one, I must agree with this issue." It is up to the American people to enlighten themselves. We need to get our news from a variety of sources so as not to let the media meddle with our minds and judgment. By doing this, we can begin to shape our own view of what is going on in Washington, and what we believe strongly in. I admit that I have even fallen into the trap of wanting to vote Democrat even if I don't understand the policies of a particular candidate. It is hard not to when the media and these politicians are constantly throwing barrages of information at voters, and we must digest and process it correctly, while also weeding out false or misleading facts. I was on a few sites the other day and was reading comments that people had left. Half of it was propaganda against 'Obamacare', saying how it will plunge our state into a Socialist system we will never get out of. The other half of comments was just people repeating the same few facts over and over again to try and justify why it isn't a form of Socialism. We need to all learn how to listen better. People get rooted in their beliefs and ideologies about politics, and can't actually hear what the other side is trying to say. Politics is a tricky business. The best way for the American public to become better aware of issues is transparency, which the Obama Administration has preached a lot about. Now, I am not sure whether they are fully carrying out this new way of dealing with politics, but I would hope that measures are being put into place that can help open up the eyes of the people in our country. By laying things out on the table for all to see, people can better analyze and make their own decisions, rather than having people tell them what is best. In the end, I just wish things weren't so distorted in Washington, and that politicians made a conscious and real effort to stick to the facts. The more information floating out there that is false, the more people believe in things that aren't necessarily true. Voting is a privilege given to the American people, and we must consider it of utmost importance and do our part to try and really understand these issues.
[Reply]
Even though this article is pretty left ill go with it. It does seem to me that people hate being told what to do. Children don’t listen to parents even though they know better for them and this cycle seems to continue, well forever. I was really too young to understand the Gore- Bush election in 2000 but now it seems as though what were people thinking if this guy had some real statistics and knew what he was doing why wasn’t he chosen. But politics is politics and Bush seemed more likable and turned people against people. Now for this reform bill and so many people in this tea party I would be willing to bet that they don’t even know what is completely about. People hate reform especially from the government it is what it is.
[Reply]
After reading this article, I was enlightened on some very interesting topics. I will openly admit that I do not care for the Democrat vs Republican debate. Because of this style, I feel like many people vote prematurely when they are not informed enough about both sides, but simply if the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican. These votes should be confidant votes, but I feel like more and more the things that should weigh heavily are being forgotten about.
From the candidate’s side of this, they are only consurned about what the voters want to hear. Our society as a whole, cares about the short term which is what the candidates focus on when really we need to start thinking about the long term for many reasons. Finding a candidate that believes in strong sustainability would be great for us, but it won’t happen since that is the long run and our voters want action now.
[Reply]
Politics are so important to the running of our country, but also fuels so many conflicts within it. I agree that we as voters are so one minded that if we just took a little time to “think outside the box,” we can see eye to eye and thus perhaps come to some kind of agreement about many of our countries issues. We also need to think about our actions and how they compare to those of the rest of the world, hence the Haitian rice example. We need to realize that we are the most significant country in the world, and work together as liberals and conservatives to better the whole world.
[Reply]
I agree that people get really upset when they are explained something like if they were idiots, like the case with healthcare. I think that people take the easy way out and reject these kind of proposals without having a clear idea why. I think this is a serious matter because I think people need to have things explained to them because a lot may not be so sure about the consequences this reform might have. If people keep rejecting these proposals nothing is ever going to get anywhere. Instead of people judging and being unsure they should take the time to listen and consider what is being said.
[Reply]
This is a well-written article. Growing up in a working class, conservative suburb of Pittsburgh and being a fairly liberal person myself, I have always wondered why this phenomenon occurs. During the Bush era, there seemed to be some sort of attack on intellectuals, as if wanting to know what was going on made us bad Americans. I was one of the many people who was relieved when Obama rose through the ranks and eventually won the presidency, but in reality, nothing has changed. Obama has kept many of the same people around him that Bush did. Now there are just self-righteous Obama supporters to go with stubborn conservatives. Sam makes a good point when he refers to the protest rallies, similar to his slavery examples. Until we take responsibility for ourselves first, it is hard to place the blame on somebody else. Part of this responsibility assures that our government is watching over us, but also that we are not screwing over other countries in the process. We have been conditioned to believe that because I am a democrat that I am entirely different than you, a republican. In reality, the whole Power Elite (to steal a term from C. Wright Mills) is functioning as one unit, because we are too busy bickering with one another. This BBC article says that the Obama administration made a big mistake by not blaming the financial crisis on the Bush administration. Seriously? Is this what we have resorted to? Regardless of who caused the problem, we should be looking for actual solutions to it. I do not follow the news very closely, but the bailout and the AIG CEO bonuses do not seem like proper solutions. No one man or administration is responsible for the current dismal state of our country, it was and is a collective effort. So, while the title of this article may be "Why do people vote against their own interests?", it appears that there is not much of a distinction between these people and myself and others who voted for Obama. Obama, while only in office a little over a year, has not delivered much of anything besides a continuation of the Bush policies. I didn't expect Obama to bail out the banks who caused the crisis we're not in, or send more troops to fight a senseless war in Afghanistan. I voted against my own interest apparently, not on purpose, but because I was lied to. This topic comes down to nothing more than ignorance. Republicans tell people that democrats do all of these evil things, and these people listen and develop ideas about democrats. On the other side, democrats have developed negative depictions of republicans as insensitive and ignorant. Rallies occur saying that our side is right and yours is wrong, and so on. Until we realize that we all essentially want the same thing, these being the freedoms that are guaranteed to us as Americans, the fighting will continue. We're all humans, we should start to prove it.
[Reply]
I am glad to see this posted because it is something I have never understood about why people vote the way they do. As for rich people, I understand why they do not want increased public health care, but why would someone who is not covered, not want affordable health care. But upon hearing the answer given by BBC, I am still not convinced. I would hope at least that people care more about results than pride. The more I think about it, and the more I watch the tea party say stupid things, I guess it is very possible that people are more wrapped up in rhetoric and pride than they are about results. I know this goes both ways, in that liberals often close their ears to logical debate, but in this case I think the conservative nay sayers take the cake.
[Reply]
I’m no economics major, but it seems the production of irony in politics is about equivalent to the production of iron in the Steel City. Is there hypocrisy in government? Did Joe Namath like women? Each is an inseparable part of the other.
In a related note, the sky is blue.
Runciman made an interesting point in saying voters “resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best. There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.”
And I agree. I don’t want to be preached to or talked down to as if I’m an inferior. I want to make my own decisions based on what I believe. But voting is more than just a right. It’s a social responsibility.
I understand voters unappreciative of being viewed as idiots, and whether politicians portray voters as such intentionally or not, it’s undesirable nonetheless. Runciman reminded me of something I heard during the presidential campaign in 2008, and I’m not so sure describing some voters as idiots is unwarranted in this case: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCipmnYCKB0.
This is a segment from a Howard Stern radio show during election season. One of Stern’s colleagues interviews Harlem residents, asking why they support Obama. Stern’s colleague intentionally states some of McCain’s policies as being policies of Obama to see if those interviewed pick up on the mistakes. The interviewer also asks if interviewees would support Palin as Obama’s vice president, to which interviewees responded they would support her. Now, I’m aware there are a lot of fallacies with this segment. A lot. Only the responses that show voters as uneducated are included, so the entire population isn’t represented. The segment suggests all Obama supporters are comparable to these, which is certainly far from the truth. The credibility of Howard Stern, primarily an entertainer, isn’t quite that of a Harvard-educated political scientist. Just to name a few.
But if you believe this segment isn’t fabricated, then it does demonstrate one important thing, though: There are voters out there who are this unaware of what they’re voting for. I’m also aware this makes liberals look bad, without showing the conservatives who undoubtedly make the same mistakes. Maybe that’s part of the reason the report was done. It’s unfortunate liberals were thrown under the bus for this, but the point is, this does exist.
Like the ignorance demonstrated by Runciman in his column and Sam in his blog post, the ignorance in this is that people voted for something without the knowledge base they should have had to make an informed decision. That’s the part of voting that’s social responsibility.
Obama was a much better orator than McCain during the campaign, and campaigned on the promise of change, undoubtedly winning over at least some who were unsatisfied with the stagnant nature of the Bush administration. In a flip of what the column discussed, this time the Democrat told better stories, stories of hope and change, and look where it got him.
The point of all this being: There are people who, when they vote, don’t fully understand what they’re voting for, which, in my mind, is just as bad as not voting at all. People scream hypocrisy when others don’t vote and then complain about our government, but really, isn’t that just as much of a crime as voting for something not fully comprehended, essentially falling for the deceit of the silver tongue because a voter went with gut instinct instead of correctly researching the issues at hand? That’s where social responsibility comes into play.
It just goes to show the power words hold. Sometimes people can be persuaded to vote against their interests, sometimes people can be persuaded to vote for something they don’t even understand.
And sometimes it seems the only people believable in politics are the Jon Stewarts and the Stephen Colberts who point out the irony of both parties, and do it in an entertaining way, to show just how funny politics can be.
Colbert/Stewart in ’12, anybody?
[Reply]
It is really absurd to hear that voters are not voting in their best interest. I can not believe that most voters do this because they think that these politicians are in some way trying to tell them what to do or deciding what is best for them. Even if this was the case, if voters were smart enough to look up the policy, see what it is all about and try to apply it to their life or see the benefits that they would get for a new health plan they would see that they are only trying to help, well most the time at least. So I understand why voters are skeptical at times about these new policies, with all the struggles of this decade, they need to read up on these new policies and decide what they want to do instead thinking that people are trying to make decisions for them because in the end they have the power to make our lives easier.
[Reply]
I think the article depicts a very real problem in the United States. Many people are completely blinded by ideology and this leads to ignorance about issues. Liberals and conservatives increasingly write off the other side simply because they cannot agree on specific things. For example, a liberal may disregard every action taken by a conservative senator simply because he disagrees with that senator on, say, the gay marriage debate. In reality, this particular senator could have important and innovative ideas to help our economy, but it is impossible to look past the initial disagreement. The same thing occurs from the right. Voters need to realize that politicians are faced with a bevy of issues and the odds of them falling in line with each voter’s ideals are zero. Consequently, voters should award every politician the benefit of the doubt in order to get the country out of the current rut we’re in.
[Reply]
First off, I would like to say that healthcare is NOT the only reason in picking a Senator. So Massachusetts voted Republican, okay! There are other issues involved other than Obama’s health care reform. I don’t understand why the article made an example of Texas and their lack of health care coverage when the article was clearly discussing the shocking vote in Massachusetts. The reason Texas votes Republican is because they are a southern state. They are, for the most part, majorly pro-life and they like having the right to bear arms and obtain guns. Though healthcare is probably important to them, other issues may be of more importance. Who are we to say that they can’t afford paying for health care? We don’t know that people are in debt due to healthcare. If it were that much of an issue, don’t you think they would have been in favor of Obama’s plan?
I think it is great that Massachusetts decided to change things up a bit. I think it is a great idea to have a mostly Republican legislative branch when the executive branch is run by democrats. Passing liberal referendums and laws should not be simple. When the Democrats run both branches of the government, law makers would have it too easy. Every bill would get passes. With the Republicans taking over the legislative branch, there will be a better balance between the conservative and liberal laws. Many Americans voted for McCain in the 2008 election, so having a Republican Congress gives the Republican voters and sense of security. Voters feel confident that their Senators will stick up for their conservative side.
There are many Americans who do not like Obama’s health plan. And frankly, I think people have the right to dislike it. Healthcare isn’t an issue for many people; therefore voters will not vote based on it. We vote based on what strikes us harder. I voted Republican because I didn’t support Obama’s tax plans. I don’t think it is right for democrats to want to tax wealthier people more money. A full democratic government does benefit less fortunate people, but at the same time it does harm to those who have work hard for everything they’ve earned. What I am trying to say is that there is more than one issue to consider when voting. If people in Massachusetts were not in desperate need of the health care reform plan, they may not have considered that while voting.
In my opinion, I am extremely thrilled with the Republican victory in Congress. I’m glad that northern states are starting to become a little less liberal. I am interested to see what will happen between the two parties. I’m guessing Obama will need to go on the health care plan soon. I will definitely stay tuned in to see what happens.
[Reply]
I agree with one part of the BBC article, when it says, "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." I believe this is true. Voters are intelligent. Hell, if a citizen isn't intelligent, they would probably think that their vote didn't matter and therefore not vote anyway. So therefore, the people that actually do vote must be intelligent. I think it is very offensive when politicians act as if the voters do not know anything. After all, where do those politicians think they are getting their votes from? Oh thats right, the people who they are putting down and acting like they are not intelligent.
[Reply]
I agree that people are losing their focus on what is important for them. The political game in this country is becoming entirely too divided. The rift is so wide that sometimes I wonder how anything in Washington gets done at all. Someone may have a good idea or plan, but almost instantly the opposite party finds reason to shoot it down. Between the filibusters, the whining, and the bickering I do not really understand how people could show such adamant support for either party right now. We have to remember that politicians are put in place to serve the people, not to engage in an endless stalemate at the taxpayer's expense.
[Reply]
It is sad to see the American people not understand who is really trying to help them, and see them not realize the benefits they are getting if they really think about it. Just as the stats showed in the article the people who voted against the health care reform are the people that need it the most. These people will not understand how much they need the healthcare plan until they are in a position to actually need it. People everywhere don’t really look at the reasoning behind many things and go with the majority or be followers and not use are own brains. I totally understand how people want the government to change its perspective on ways, but at the same time when they do and it ends up costing them more money they change there stance on issues they know are wrong. Just as we all use cell a phones but don’t know who makes them, or where they come from, and are slaves the people who are making them. Also the politicians who tell the truth are the ones that never win, the politicians actually trying to help the people are put down by the public.
[Reply]
First of all, I just need to say that I hated this article. It was horribly written and there were so many random, non-connected ideas floating around in it I could barely make out what the point of the article was. But anyway, there are a lot of point to address in it. First, Dr. Runciman needs to stop insinuating that the American people are a bunch of idiots just because they don't want to see a reform happen that could possibly help them out. Yes, health care reform could be beneficial to thousands upon thousands of people, but perhaps some of those people place great value on the concept of an individual working hard to provide for themselves and their families in a non-socialist society and don't believe that the government should step in to help people in this way…it's a matter of personal opinion. And they can choose to value their ideals over saving some more on their medical expenses. It's not a matter of stupidity or being against something just because you don't like the person proposing the idea- it's about balancing all of the values you hold as important and coming to an educated decision about what you will and will not support. You have to look at it from all angles. Personally, the health care reform Obama's proposing would only hurt my family and I (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. Also, it's important to point out that this goes both ways. There are many wealthy liberals who have nothing personal at all to gain from this proposed reform, yet they still support it based on their values and ideals and what they would like to see happening in our society. Informed decisions can't always be based on what you need and what will bring the most value to you alone. Then the article moves on to discuss "stories trumping facts and how Obama immediately upon taking office should have blamed the poor economy on Bush so that no one would think it was his fault….where did that even come from?? I can't even comment on those ideas because they are so out of place in this article. 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 that it is completely oversimplifying the many factors that go into a person's decision of who (and therefore what) to vote for. Health Care reform is just one small piece of the huge puzzle of issues facing Americans every day. It might be of upmost importance to some people and therefore at the top of their list of issues they want addressed by our leaders, so that one issue would greatly affect their voting style. But some people might find the myriad of other issues out there to be more important and how they would vote based on all of those issues most likely will outweigh how they would vote if they were simply voting based on proposed health care reforms alone. It is not the voters "preference for emotional engagement" or their "resentment for the intellectual snobs" that cause them to vote a certain way as was so condescendingly proposed but rather a weighing of all the issues they find to be of utmost importance, such as the economy, the war in Iraq, their opinion on abortion and gay marriage, etc.
[Reply]
As I read this article, I can’t help but laugh and shake my head. Granted, it’s good to be up to date and know what’s going on in the country you live in. However, I choose to turn my head the other way when it comes to things like this. What is wrong with these people???? You don’t want health care? Fine. Don’t give those people health care. They can sit at home and rot away while the people who want health care get it. I lived from my freshman year of high school until this year, my freshman year of college, without health insurance. The free clinic was my best friend. When my mom’s job went out of business, she just couldn’t swing it. I know many other people out there are living like this so that is a great, great question. WHY DO PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS?? Like why do you care so much??? What’s sooo bad about healthcare? The world may never know.
[Reply]
I think this article is really shocking and just goes to show how stubborn people can be. Instead of letting the government help them, citizens of the United States are voting against the government for things that they need. Like the article states here, people are voting against policies that could help them just out of spite; "They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best." Obviously we need to have some type of political power in our country to keep the country in order. We put people in the white house by voting for them. There are several candidates and to say that none of them are viable to run the country and that they "think" they know best is silly. Someone has to do the job and I think people need to get off their high horse and follow the course of action that needs to be put into place to help them and their families live a better life.
[Reply]
I think this is an excellent example of how in a country where our actions have multinational implications, we often only consider how our actions relate to homeland issues. We often pride ourselves on the help we can provide to impoverished countries, we also pride ourselves on the outputs of our own nation, and there is a dichotomy here. How can we help others with our surplus if we are only providing enough for ourselves? This is not a problem to be worked out simply in congress, but as suggested, a problem that should be considered by those on any side of the political spectrum in and out of Washington. Before you back a movement whole heartedly, consider the national and global implications of the movement and see if you are alright also backing with those implications.
[Reply]
Why do people vote against their interest? The answer to this one is simple, people are morons! I would be willing to bet that 90% of the people in the town hall meetings couldn't tell you what is in the health care reform bill, well except for the sections regarding "death panels". Their are people out there who don't know who won the Revolutionary War but they can tell you who was voted off American Idol or who makes up the cast of that stupid New Jersey shore. And the worse part is their not just hurting themselves with their ignorance, they are hurting every person without health care. These people should stop watching Fox News and start thinking for themselves.
[Reply]
The average voter in the U.S. is ignorant to the issues they are actually voting on. Few people actually explore the issues that they vote on and rely on what the media presents to us. People are set in their ways. If they republican, they’ll most likely find some reason to support the republican candidate without really knowing what their plans are. The same goes for democrats. The public doesn’t actually vote on politicians’ plans, but rather the one that seems to have similar morals or beliefs as they do. That’s why many vote against their own issues without even realizing what they’re doing.
[Reply]
Alright, this is definitely an interesting concept. It seems logical, at least from where I stand, that the people most in need of healthcare reform would be the most supportive of it, but apparently that is not the case. Are people really contesting something that will, in turn, help them merely because they are saddened and angered by the fact that their interests are being decided for them? Right, I understand, they do not want to feel like incompetent idiots and at the same time they want to have figured out their interests and what is best on their own, but come on.
[Reply]
To me, that article was just a bunch of republican bashing statements. Everything they said people do is because somehow the republican party brainwashes voters with stories and false statistics. It also seems to say that the democrats can do no wrong, and know what exactly what's best for the American people. Personally, I hate politics. I think its just a bunch of selfish cry-babies who just want someone to pay attention to them. The bottom line is, both sides have statistics and stories. They both take the facts and make a story to fit their agenda. One side is never right and one side is never wrong. I also think that either side needs to stop getting in the other's way when a good idea to fix a major problem has been proposed. It shouldn't matter who comes up with it, if its a good idea then its a good idea.
[Reply]
Firstly, I would like to point out how awesome the picture at the top of the BBC article is. That lady has some sort of primal, chimpanzee-like expression on her face. On that note, I think this article gives voters entirely too much credit, even despite it being an article pointing out the ridiculousness of their decision making behavior. It tries to at least give them credit for understanding the issues. Really, BBC? How many of these voters have actually sifted through any pieces of actual legislation in their entire lifetimes? I would be willing to bet that particular number is not very high.
So, as civic, responsible American citizens, who do we turn to to inform us? We turn on the TV and catch a couple minutes of news coverage between reruns of some retarded sitcom or another. The conservatives turn on their Fox News and the liberals turn on their MSNBC they they get slightly but significantly different stories on the same issues. Then another group only watches the Daily Show because news is only even palatable when it's hilarious (When asked about his duties as a media professional, Jon Stewart pointed out that his show is preceded by “puppets making prank phone calls”).
So the liberals learn about how ridiculous the republicans are and how they do everything wrong. The conservatives learn about how ridiculous the democrats are and how they do everything wrong. Whatever demographic comedy central primarily attracts becomes cynical about the whole thing. Perhaps this is the cause of the voter's mistrust alluded to in the article. Two biases are created and gently nurtured throughout the average voter's media viewing experience. One, their own party is always right. Second, the other party is always wrong. These news networks constantly agreeing with themselves and kissing their own asses is only serving to polarize the voting population to one side or another. This makes objective evaluation of new legislation unreasonable to expect.
Obama got elected riding the message of hope for bipartisan enabled change. Clearly, in this culture, bipartisanship is failing. I do not agree with Dr. Richards that this article is less effective because it only cites a liberal point of view. The reason the author picked this subject, is that a lot of these voters irrefutably have a lot more to gain than to lose on this health care bill. Yet, they remain on their original standpoint enthusiastically nodding in agreement to whatever their preferred news source is saying. This is not a comment on health care or stubborn conservatives, it is a comment on voters being unable to reevaluate their beliefs in the face of significant benefit. I am sure an analogous situation could be found opposite the spectrum but it wouldn't really benefit the article that much.
[Reply]
This post really opened my eyes and made me think about this. It is extremely true that people that consider them selves "liberals" are constantly looking for someone or a group of people to blame and form protests or cants against. It is a shame that they don't take the time to look at the big picture about how Haitians are being cheated just so we can have cheaper prices for things. I do not thing that the government is all to blame for these problems that we have. If people spent less time forming these protests and finding things to fight about then they would have more time and money to help about the people in the world that really do need help.
[Reply]
After reading this article I agree with the things the author says about voters. Voters want to feel as if they connect with you and not as if you a deity over them. It reinforces the democratic process for them. They also are more likely to vote for someone with a story they could relate to over numbers because numbers are numbers. Robots can spit out numbers; it is humans who show leadership, compassion, and remorse. This is evident in as early as school elections. However, if one could present data and statistics in such a manner than it is a double plus.
[Reply]
Political parties are stupid. I honestly do not understand why our country has to be divided into two political parties. I am not highly educated in politics to say the least, but why are there two political parties for our ONE Country. We are supposed to be a united group of citizens. Whether we wage war on a country or send aid to help in tragic situations or even travel for a friendly visit, we are recognized as Americans. It's not like anyone would go to Europe and introduce themselves as a Republican or Democrat. No. They would say they are an American obviously. But why while we are in our homeland, we are not Americans, but members of a political party?
[Reply]
I think this article provides an interesting perspective on why Americans who stand to benefit the most from government reform strongly oppose it. This semester I have been taking a class, COMM 110 called Media and Democracy. Before taking this class, I wouldn’t say I was incredible attune to the political landscape. Hearing, and reading more and more about the bipartisan blockades and filibusters that prohibit the American people from benefiting makes it difficult to understand why as in this article describes Texans about siding with the staunch republican viewpoint and opposing the healthcare bill when it many of them don’t even have healthcare. When you really break it down the hypocrisy is shocking.
I believe the sociopolitical protests that these hyprocits are engaged in demonstrates that rather than figure out where they stand on the issue themselves, they’d rather let someone 2000 miles away decide that issue for them. Not saying that these people are terrible, but many of the these Texans I would extend to say are less educated, and less wealth than their congressional representative counterparts. So why are they letting the viewpoints and biases of these congressmen determine their stance on an issue that would so clearly benefit them? Who knows.
I think a lot of people especially who stand opposed to the healthcare issue don’t clearly understand the benefits. Everyone is all caught up in taxes, and tax rates. When if you look at the actual breakdown of the healthcare bill, many of the proposed higher tax to pay for the bill would be equivalent or less than most of the lower income people pay for health care now. I think if you asked most of the people who stand to benefit from the healthcare bill and have a “deep emotional attachment” they wouldn’t be able to accurately talk about the bill. Just the same way you have seen news reporters walk down the street during the last presidential election and people would say that George Bush is running again, or Hilary Clinton won the primary.
I think a couple more interesting issues were discussed in this article as well. The paragraph about how Al Gore used hard evidence to describe something in the debate and Bush described his as a “numbers man” and ridiculed Gore, and still won the debate. Another important issue that was highlighted in this article was the fact that Obama made a “tremendous mistake” by not publicly saying the economic collapse should have been blamed on the Bush administration. I think that Ben Benerake aside, this author is 100% correct. Many people seem to forget that the economic collapse happened DURING the 8 year Bush administration and since Obama has been in office he has done everything in his power to reverse the downturn.
[Reply]
I kind of have to disagree with one of the things Sam said in this post. Haitians are dying of starvation and thirst, in addition to not having homes. America is sending crops over to the Haitian people to save them, not to put out of business their farmers. I don't think anyone is really out to send extra crops to Haiti as additional income. I think we're just trying to help. After Haiti is back on its feet, which will definitely take a long time, I’m sure we (America) will stop sending crops over, and their farmers can take back the market.
[Reply]
I agree with this article and I also agree with Sam's point that it goes both ways, in the side of the right and the side of the left. It seems to me that people in America, though they banter about wanting Washington to be non-partisan, are completely partisan a lot of times. They don't even know the crux of some issues and just decide "well if it is being proposed by Republicans, and I am one, I must agree with this issue." It is up to the American people to enlighten themselves. We need to get our news from a variety of sources so as not to let the media meddle with our minds and judgment. By doing this, we can begin to shape our own view of what is going on in Washington, and what we believe strongly in. I admit that I have even fallen into the trap of wanting to vote Democrat even if I don't understand the policies of a particular candidate. It is hard not to when the media and these politicians are constantly throwing barrages of information at voters, and we must digest and process it correctly, while also weeding out false or misleading facts. I was on a few sites the other day and was reading comments that people had left. Half of it was propaganda against 'Obamacare', saying how it will plunge our state into a Socialist system we will never get out of. The other half of comments was just people repeating the same few facts over and over again to try and justify why it isn't a form of Socialism. We need to all learn how to listen better. People get rooted in their beliefs and ideologies about politics, and can't actually hear what the other side is trying to say. Politics is a tricky business. The best way for the American public to become better aware of issues is transparency, which the Obama Administration has preached a lot about. Now, I am not sure whether they are fully carrying out this new way of dealing with politics, but I would hope that measures are being put into place that can help open up the eyes of the people in our country. By laying things out on the table for all to see, people can better analyze and make their own decisions, rather than having people tell them what is best. In the end, I just wish things weren't so distorted in Washington, and that politicians made a conscious and real effort to stick to the facts. The more information floating out there that is false, the more people believe in things that aren't necessarily true. Voting is a privilege given to the American people, and we must consider it of utmost importance and do our part to try and really understand these issues
[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- 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]
This article was certainly interesting, but it did not really provide any new information. Any American who has watched some valid form of news over the past year has seen these "Town Hall" meetings, and they are frequently disturbing to me. Now, let me first state, that I am a liberal, Proudly, unashamedly, and permanently slanted all the way to the left. I am one of those people who feels this health care plan does not do enough and could certainly be strengthened. Now, back to these town hall meetings. For eight years, Democrats were constantly called unpatriotic and traitorous for even thinking of disagreeing with George W. Bush. However, now it is suddenly all right, and even our civic duty, not only to question the administration, but to be blatantly disrespectful and seemingly violent towards our ELECTED representatives. Now, I will not say that I was never disrespectful or rude to the previous administration, because I was. But, I was always told how wrong it was. I do not care if they say that you are allowed to disrespect the President; however, there cannot be certain presidents that you can publicly disagree with and some that you cannot.
One of the most interesting parts of the article is where the author talked about story having a lot to do with how voters chose who they will vote for. The perfect example of that would be millions of American's thinking that Barack Obama was a Muslim or an Arab, when he was neither of those things (not that it should have mattered if he had been). An opposition frequently produces stories that they hope hinder the other nominees chances, but the American public is much too quick to buy into them, without investigating for themselves. That is the biggest issue. Many Americans are too willing to but whatever brand of bullshit the media is presenting to them, without taking the time or effort to find out the truth.
Another issue is our society's obsession with belonging to a group. Everyone is so concerned with belonging to either the Republican or Democratic party and voting strictly along party lines without even looking into the issues. America's herd mentality is a dangerous facet to the American psyche. Instead of voting for what they "think" is in the best interest for their party, perhaps people should try investigating the issues, really spend time getting to know the candidate's positions on certain topics, and then making up their mind.
[Reply]
I found the BBC article to be very thought provoking. There is much irony in the fact that many of the reforms that are proposed are being voted against by those people who it is designed to help. Many politicians will attempt to do the right thing in pushing for the changes that they ran for. They ran with beliefs and for the most part tend to follow them in their decisions. However, they need to consider that the public's opinion changes, and often trying to help those whose beliefs have changed is very difficult to do. People's opinions are very susceptible to change and this needs to considered by politicians when they make their decisions.
[Reply]
i am personally not a democrat or a republican because personally i think it is dumb to affiliate yourself with one group just because you have some likeness. i think both groups are both very ignorant looking at the other party, the republicans think that the democrats to liberal and are just crazy hippies who don't know anything, when democrats think republicans are these old guys who tote guns. when in reality, just as we are in race or cultural, we are all really alike and should just really vote or be who you are supposed to be. there is so many more qualities these two hold in common and don't even realize, we should really get this political racism under control.
[Reply]
I found this article particularly interesting because I read one very similar when I was in high school. The title might have even been exactly the same, something to the effect of why people vote against their own interests. Again, it had quite a noticeable political spin against Republicans. It was written after Kerry lost the election against Bush and seemed to reflect on reasons why Democrats were voting Republican. The author felt that the poorest of the poor Americans were voting against themselves in the interest of the rich, elite Republicans.
The article did indeed make an impression on me, however. Even now, some 3 years later I can still remember some of the points. First off, it argued that instead of voting according to one’s current economic standing, people tend to vote in the interests of their future economic standing. It goes back to the good old American dream. People truly believe that they will one day be millionaires. Well, maybe not millionaires, but at least living an upper-class lifestyle. I know that I’ve certainly seen it as a student here at Penn State. Plenty of my friends are riding in student loans for their education and bank loans for their rent. Yet, they do not seem to stress about this accumulating debt just yet. They still lead a fairly glamorous lifestyle, sporting designer clothing, acrylic nails, the newest Blackberry. They truly believe that after college, they will indeed be making a huge amount of money and will be able to pay everything off. In a similar fashion, this article argued that voters want to protect the elite standing and privileges of the upper class (which will be them in the near future), so they vote in ways that hurt their current economic standing.
Another argument that was made is a bit similar to one from this BBC article: People tend to vote based on beliefs, emotions instead of practicality. The examples that were given had to do with Christians against abortion or people against gun control laws. It said in so many words that although the presidential candidate may not work for your best interests economically, if he supports a longstanding belief, the voter will weigh this as more important. The article posted in this blog also mentioned that voters with an emotional attachment to an argument may sway their vote.
I have to say I agree with many of the points that this article brought up, especially this whole idea about anger. People do not like being dummied down in any way, or told what to do. I have to admit, it is a bit absurd that those who will find tremendous aide in the new health care reform fight it so fervently.
On the other hand, I must mention that my father is adamantly against this new plan. As an intelligent man, I respect his opinion and see his sides of the argument. This article is written with a clear bias that all should be in support of the reform, and it digs to find reason why anyone would not be. Some of which may be a little stretched.
[Reply]
I first off would like to say that the people that vote but don’t care to know the facts behind the situations that the presidents address something is truly wrong with them. If they find it to hard or to much to actually listen to the things that they want to complain about and that could possibly be changed then it is no ones fault but their own if they see no progress. __I also think that it is so true that the so called advocates of the world would be so sad and upset if the things that they were so called advocates for were actually changed and made out in a way that they benefitted some one other than themselves. There is just no way that you can say that you are trying to end world hunger, if the US is the only one benefits from that while other nations are starving and struggling because of that same reason.
[Reply]
I really think that politicians need to stop saying all of the stuff that they can and will do if they are really not, because in the end, even though it might not matter to them, they are the ones that look bad. I really hate to hear all of the promises that are made that don’t come true or that come true for the people who don’t really need it, while the ones who do are left to fend for themselves. And the dumb voters who don’t want to be told what to do need to just shut up their mouths because they clearly don’t have the sense that God gave them to listen and to think about what would really be the right choice. Some people would like the article says go and vote for something that is of no way beneficial to them rather than listen and make a smart choice for something that they would actually be happy about in the long run.
[Reply]
You want lower health insurance but rather go with the candidate that leaves you with a high premium or no premium at all. its just silly, I wish that the whole United States would just get themselves together and think before they do the things that they do, because it really is sad at the way that people go about making the what they believe are smart choices, when in all reality they are not. to go against something that is designed to help you based on pride is beyond silly, it is just plain ignorant and people like that in my opinion deserve all of the hardship that they face, because if you know you need the help instead of turning a deaf ear to things that make sense, just because you actually have to listen is foolish. Thinking outside of the box never hurt anyone!!
[Reply]
Who will the politicians be when our generation is in their 40s? I don't know many people involved in politics, or who want to be politicians, but it is scary to think about. I don't understand how people can ignore facts when it comes to voting. I guess if you're not listening you won't feel like an idiot voting for someone whose ideas are ridiculous and non nonsensical. I find if absurd that if you're explaining than you're losing. If something needs to be explained, then obviously it has reasoning behind it. Should people just buy whatever it is that certain people say without understanding why or how? Much of America is stupid. They should stop voting.
[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]
Raising the question of why people vote against their interests certainly isn’t a new or even intriguing question to me. This is a question that has been thrown around for a long time, and has a decently straight forward answer – they just don’t know.
There have been many shifts in political theory and acceptance from U.S. citizens throughout our history. So basically, there have been periods where intellectuals were presumed to be best suited to lead the nation. And there have been periods where politicians who knew about America (not needing great intellectual perspectives) where thought to be best for the nation.
Coming from a small town, I have seen firsthand how people hold on to their “morals” when voting. From an outside and educated perspective it is very hard to understand how someone could vote against a politician that supports policies that would benefit them. Since coming to college, first becoming interested, and then learning and reading about politics, it became hard for me to understand how people in my small town voted for politicians who were hindering them economically.
For a long time I was puzzle by the fact that working class people supported politicians who were pushing policies to benefit wealthy Americans. Of course there is always the tie to abortion and so-called “family values” topics, but financially working class Americans do not benefit from majority of Republican supported policies.
I think Westen (who I have to admit I am a fan of his work) and Frank break down this issue wisely. In fact It’s pretty simple, average Americans, who are in no way concerned with what’s the latest academic theory or what an institute’s latest statistics are, become easily attracted to the simple, straight-forward Republican message.
They do not want some wealthy academic analyzing what’s wrong with their life, even if that person is right. Simple, straight to the point, easy to understand messages are what these people are longing for, and certainly what is wrong with American society is not a simple, straight-forward answer.
Instead, the problems facing the United States are a deep-rooted issue of institutional inequality, shown in educational attainment and access, health care access, living segregation, and etc. So I guess if the left wants to begin attracting more people they need to simplify their message.
Understanding this theory is important for average people who want to just talk to family members to advocates and politicians who want to talk to the masses. Having the basic understanding of what the majority of Americans want to hear is important. Because as knowledgeable as one maybe about a political issue, knowing who one is speaking to and what they may what to hear is crucial to making a difference in their opinion.
[Reply]
I agree that people are losing their focus on what is important for them. The political game in this country is becoming entirely too divided. The rift is so wide that sometimes I wonder how anything in Washington gets done at all. Someone may have a good idea or plan, but almost instantly the opposite party finds reason to shoot it down. Between the filibusters, the whining, and the bickering I do not really understand how people could show such adamant support for either party right now. We have to remember that politicians are put in place to serve the people, not to engage in an endless stalemate at the taxpayer's expense.
[Reply]
I found this article really interesting. Although I am not really into politics and hate all the debating and crap that goes on with that, its interesting to think about how people vote and debate against something that hurts them in the end. I personally don’t understand it so I have no opinion on other peoples choices but you would think that the main goal in politics was to better yourself. I guess peoples self esteem and pride get in the way of that. I honestly do not understand most of the decisions politicians make but I know how hard it must be to please everyone.
[Reply]
I do not agree with the point this article is trying to make. The author is saying that people vote against their interests because they do not want politicians to tell them what is best for them or talk to them like they are dumb. Maybe the people who are so dead set against the health care reform really do not believe in it. It does not make sense to me that people would refuse to vote for something that benefits them just because they do not want to be babies by the government. I do however love Sam’s point of the fact that we often do not think about the real consequences of what we vote for or do, such as buying cell phones that were made by slaves.
[Reply]