Are you over 30? Because there was a time in recent history when Republicans in general were rather different animals. My first vote was for a Republican, and I do not regret it in the least. Not doing that any time soon.
Yes.
It’s not enough for something to be in one’s self-interest. It has to be good for society, too.
If a bill were proposed that would specifically exempt people of my particular age, race, and gender from having to pay income taxes, then I would benefit and it would be in my self-interest, but would it be fair or good for society? No, so I would not favor such a bill.
I think you do poor people a disservice when you assume they vote Democratic in the hopes of getting “free stuff”. What I believe is in the poor’s best interest is ensuring that the safety net is sound and that the government is working to help create more opportunities. The Republican policies have leaned toward minimizing the safety net and cutting taxes for the wealthy in the hopes that the incentive of keeping more money is what will lead them to create jobs. That has been tried and failed.
Which party has done what it can to create artificial roadblocks to keep the poor from voting? Voter ID, shorter voting hours, inequitable distribution of voting machines, throwing out voter registrations because they were printed on the wrong weight of paper- these are all dirty tricks to keep poor people, particularly minorities, from voting. The poor don’t want “free stuff”. They want to vote.
Which party has refused to extend unemployment benefits? Those laid off because venture capitalists gutted their companies need a lot of time to find something else in this job market. It isn’t “free stuff”, it’s getting a helping hand through difficult times.
Which party has a record of union-busting? The working class isn’t looking for “free stuff”, they want a system whereby they have some bargaining power over wages and workplace safety.
Which party has a record of cutting taxes on the wealthy, made false claims about “double taxation” and “death taxes” so that the flow of wealth from poor to rich accelerates? Meanwhile, the poor have been hit with regressive taxes, sales taxes, liquor taxes, tobacco taxes. These are all just a minor annoyance to the elite but can be a genuine hardship to the poor. There’s a difference between wanting “free stuff” and being asked to contribute more so that the elite can contribute less.
Which party has a record of exploiting wedge social issues, demonizing Hispanics, Muslims, and homosexuals? Which party gins up fears that guns will be confiscated every time Diane Feinstein breaks wind?
It ain’t the Democrats doing all this, that’s for damn sure.
How long did it take for your family to work itself up from “very poor” to “not poor anymore”?
So your family, as a unit, believed that if you accepted welfare, you would all forever swear off work and live off the government/taxpayers the rest of your lives?
All of the progressive legislation passed in the 20th century had nothing to do with American prosperity? It was all just free-market goodness?
I can’t help but wonder what role social-conservative ideology played in your family’s political views.
And exactly how are we to place this anecdote within our pattern of facts and information?
I think the posters who are asking detailed questions about Bricker’s personal situation are missing the point. I also think that the idea that people “voting against their own interest” are misinformed or foolish is incorrect.
There’s nothing wrong with supporting politicians who want to do away with policies that you benefit from if you have principled reasons for thinking they’re bad policies. Politics would be even more toxic than it already is if we literally expected people to only vote for things in their short-term financial interest rather than vote for policies that support the principles they believe in.
One of the principles I believe in is that everyone should get to vote. Whether or not they are good at navigating a bureaucracy. Whether or not they pay close attention to political campaigns. Whether or not they vote for the candidates and policies I support. Because it’s the right thing to do.
Why don’t you? (not necessarily you, Bricker, but you, people who are arguing in favor of more restrictions on voting)
Probably but let’s see the degree of how ignorant they were:
Were your parents on food stamps? You say you were poor but that doesn’t reveal that.
If they weren’t, your personalization of this is wrong.
If they were, were they prone to saying sentiments such as “Of all the things they could cut in America, it shouldn’t be the food stamp program?”
If not, then they could vote for politicians who wanted to cut Food Stamps and not be ignorant. A bit dumb, but not ignorant.
If they did say things such as that, what Republicans were they voting for? My guess is it wasn’t people such as Mitt Romney (you don’t say how old you are or the age of your parents) since the Republican party has changed drastically in the past few decades.
So in your attempt to personalize this, you only show that it isn’t about you.
By all means feel free to answer my questions. But unless your parents were on food stamps, really wanted food stamps to not be cut but voted for politicians whose stated goals and actions have been to cut food stamps, then the level of which your parents voted against their own interests is significantly less than the people who I refer to.
Which should be obvious.
But yeah, any poor person who votes Republican is voting against their interests. It’s just a lot more obvious these days.
This bit of hyperbole presumes that keeping hundreds of thousands of children from starving in the streets is not a benefit to society.
Thank you for pointing this out and the eloquent way you explained it away as the garbage strawman that it is.
Then he shouldn’t have brought it up, but the devil is in the details.
I disagree.
Except that isn’t what these people are saying. They are saying that “Of all the things they could cut in America, it shouldn’t be the food stamp program” while voting for politicians who want to do just that.
When I was young I attempted to make it in a musical field. It meant eschewing a “real job” for positions that would allow me to live my bohemian lifestyle. I keep my Social Security printout every year it is mailed to me. The year I turned 25 I lived in New York and I evidently made $607 (I am sure I made more from under the table jobs and some money internationally, but while it was more than $607, it was still a paltry sum).
I didn’t sign up for assistance. I didn’t do this not because I couldn’t have used the help, but because I was able-bodied and I made a choice to try and have a career that was outside the norm. I turned down jobs that required me suspending or ending my dreams.
I felt that assistance was for people who needed it, not who chose it. So not only did I not want to avail myself of it, but I wanted to make sure that it was there for others and not take even a small portion.
Voting one’s principles is a lot easier than living it. Ayn Rand accepted Social Security, for example. But in my view you go from being ignorant to being a hypocrite by doing that. Nobody is forcing anyone to sign up for assistance. But I am glad it’s there for those who feel they need it.
Nobody said that people shouldn’t be allowed to vote, even against their self-interests. This whole tangent came up when D’Anconia accused Democratic voters of being ignorant and all I wanted to do was show him or her how wrong he or she was.
He brought it up as an example of a case where someone would vote for principles they believed in and what they think will be in the long-term interests of society.
And there are lots of people who do so. In fact, I’d be surprised if anyone voted solely for things that were in their own interest, and not at least a little bit for what they think will make things better in general.
What exactly is the point of delving into exactly how poor he might have been?
But the details matter.
What is the point of misrepresenting what I asked? I didn’t say “how poor were you,” as you very well know. I asked if they used food stamps. And railed against cutting food stamps. While voting for politicians who wanted to cut or end food stamps.
Which are things that are very relevant to my point.
Several people have been arguing that it’s reasonable to add restrictions to voting in the interest of reducing the number of “uninformed” voters who cast a vote. The passage you’re responding to is directed to them, and the sentence immediately after it (about navigating a bureaucracy) is directly related to the issue of requiring formal identification to vote.
There are several posters questioning Bricker in a variety of ways that I intended to paraphrase as “how poor were you really?” You included. I intended to summarize, not to misrepresent.
It sounds like your point is that there are people who vote for politicians who are opposed to a policy that those voters vociferously support. I agree that that’s true. I wouldn’t necessarily say those people are hypocrites, though. I strongly support lots of things, and I’ve yet to find a politician who agrees with me on all of them, but I manage to pick one to vote for regardless.
Why is it relevant whether Bricker’s family were such voters?
I’ll reiterate my original objection to this line of discussion: I believe that Bricker’s point in his example was to suggest that “voting against one’s immediate financial interests” is a poor metric to judge whether voters are informed or principled or reasonable. The exact situation of his family story seems irrelevant to that point. In fact, the point seems obvious to me. Surely you don’t make your vote solely based on which politician’s platform will result in the best personal returns to you, do you?
I only saw one and my posts are a direct contradiction to everything s/he has posted, so I don’t know why you’re directing it at me.
I looked over all of the responses to Bricker and none of them asked him to quantify how poor he was. One poster asked when his family escaped being poor. I asked a specific question about a specific detail. So I believe you are mistaken: Nobody asked him how poor he was.
I demonstrated that over half of entire county is reliant upon SNAP to eat but four out of five of them directly vote against the thing they rely on. A person was quoted as saying it was very important to her and she was not alone.
Does the ability to eat seem like something that would be trumped by, say, the aid we send to Israel? Possibly NASA budgeting is on their mind? I mean, they can always NOT eat if those things are important to them, right?
He brought it up. He even asked us for the relevancy. So I think you’ll have to take that up with him.
I disagree and I explained why in great detail.
I explained why the details matter. I am sorry you still don’t get it but there is a difference between being poor but making a point to not avail one’s self of government assistance while voting for those who would abolish or curtail that assistance rather than take the money and vote the same way. One has consistency, at least. The other is hypocrisy or “I gots mine” selfishness or both. End stop.
I have yet to come across a situation where something that benefits me is not a benefit for the country as a whole so it’s pretty easy to vote. Also, I am an informed voter - the opposite of the kind of people I am discussing here.
I’m not directing it at you. My original post had two main points:
-
The specifics of Bricker’s situation are not important.
-
Having everyone vote is important.
The first was directed at you (and others) who I thought were engaging in a pointless line of argument. The second wasn’t. I then responded to you when you claimed that no one was advocating for some people not voting. Because they are.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on the rest. I think we’ve both stated our case.
It is hardly possible to comment on politics without making some such assumptions.
Here’s another factor that perhaps bodes ill (or perhaps bodes well) for the Dems: The Tea Party ain’t quite dead yet, and is not dialing back on the crazy.
You can make those assumptions when trying to predict things, but it’s pointless to look back at how people voted and be angry that they don’t vote the way you think they should.
I think that 75% of voters should vote Republican, but I understand why many of them don’t. My view is that Republicans need to change to reach the voters who are reachable who they aren’t getting right now, not that voters need to change and realize that Republicans are better for them.