• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservatives "Voting against their interests"?

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,352
Reaction score
16,786
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Recently (this morning) I read the following post by a fellow forum-goer who shall remain nameless:

If you spend decades voting against things that will help you, will this cause a continuous state of anger? When you talk to conservatives these days, it sure does seem to be that way.

I have heard this canard time and time again: Conservatives are voting against their interests. Christians are voting against their interests. The White Working Class is voting against its interests. It is something that is repeated regularly within the press enough to merit its own discussion, i.e., the idea that when I go to the polls and cast my vote for a Republican candidate at the local, state or federal levels, I am voting against my interests.

For those who believe conservatives are indeed voting against their interests, that presumes that you know what mine or other conservatives' interests are. So, I would ask anyone who believes this ideological narrative: What are my interests, specifically? What are conservatives' interests in general? And how does voting for conservative policies and politicians go against those interests?
 
Last edited:

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Recently (this morning) I read the following post by a fellow forum-goer who shall remain nameless:



I have heard this canard time and time again: Conservatives are voting against their interests. Christians are voting against their interests. The White Working Class is voting against its interests. It is something that is repeated regularly within the press enough to merit its own discussion. The idea, that when I go to the polls and cast my vote for a Republican candidate at the local, state or federal levels, I am voting against my interests.

For those who believe conservatives are indeed voting against their interests, that presumes that you know what mine or other conservatives' interests are. So, I would ask anyone who believes this ideological narrative: What are my interests, specifically? What are conservatives' interests in general? And how does voting for conservative policies and politicians go against those interests?

You get to decide your interests, and how to best obtain them, nobody else.

These people who are trying to decide for you are uncivil at best and abusive at worst.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,803
Reaction score
17,018
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Recently (this morning) I read the following post by a fellow forum-goer who shall remain nameless:
I have heard this canard time and time again: Conservatives are voting against their interests. Christians are voting against their interests. The White Working Class is voting against its interests. It is something that is repeated regularly within the press enough to merit its own discussion, i.e., the idea that when I go to the polls and cast my vote for a Republican candidate at the local, state or federal levels, I am voting against my interests.

For those who believe conservatives are indeed voting against their interests, that presumes that you know what mine or other conservatives' interests are. So, I would ask anyone who believes this ideological narrative: What are my interests, specifically? What are conservatives' interests in general? And how does voting for conservative policies and politicians go against those interests?

Felis, part of the issue is that you are different than most people, in general. You're intellectually curious, and you genuinely appear to try.
Since most people do not posses those qualities, you may very well get caught up in more generalized attacks on [deplorables] that dominate the discussion, and who today drive the political agenda, presidency, former Republican House, and check the Republican Senate majority.

The second issue is wide, and philosophical. If Republicans by in large right now represent anti-truth, scorched-earth style partisan politics, this is ultimately the enemy of all decent humans.
This is an ethical position.
It's like if a person decides to attack truth, declaring that it simply doesn't matter. They then rally their anti-truth "troops" to effect change.
And yet, if that same ethical rule is applied to themselves, it falls apart. You lead your troops only to find they lied about joining. You get there and try to enact change but they lied and push for status quo.
Etc. Without reason/logic/truth, it falls apart. This is in opposition to all reasonable people, it is attacking oneself in a philosophical sense. If you know prisoner's dilemma game theory basics (I only know the basics and barely that), what always occurs is that if a system, a government, a community, etc., is well run...there can always be individuals within that system that break the rules for their own (selfish) gain.
So a person who works for a company, but skims a little of the top, for example. Now, if everyone broke the law/rules as they did, there would be nothing to skim, it would be anarchy. But it's because of the good rules and good people who follow them cooperatively, that we have these fairly corruption institutions that function. Every time someone breaks the rules for their own gain, they are ultimately attacking the system that they rely on. Again, attacking themselves. This is the cornerstone of ethics...rules have to apply to everyone, you cannot pick and choose.
These people who break the rules for their own gain, but enjoy the benefits rule followers bring...are the real parasites, the danger.
Someone who we know is struggling that we assist with housing and medical care, are not parasites...they are not unwanted and harmful. The rich, corporation executive who embezzles.that is unwanted and harmful...

If they gain enough supporters who emulate them, it can ruin the entire system. They may claim they want that, and even get it...but they are wrong and we know it.

Lastly, and most obviously, is the more mundane and low-level argument that it's all these rural, fly-over types who continually oppose government safety nets.
These people largely relying on those same social safety nets...support a party that opposes them.

And religions evangelicals, supporting a president and other party members (the Kings and Roy Moore's), who exhibit terrible qualities, because they are getting something in return. These people are attacking the teachings of their prophet/god Jesus, no doubt.

And supporting lower taxes for the ultra-wealthy, which in turn hurts them downstream since the debt will be subsidized by everyone ultimately.

And opposing education when its they who need it most to compete in today's' competitive, global world.

In opposing immigration, when they are nowhere near a border and are not reasonably being impacted to the level that their insane rhetoric and hatred of immigrant reaches. (that one is maybe not attacking themselves? Hard to say).
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,352
Reaction score
16,786
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Felis, part of the issue is that you are different than most people, in general. You're intellectually curious, and you genuinely appear to try.
Since most people do not posses those qualities, you may very well get caught up in more generalized attacks on [deplorables] that dominate the discussion, and who today drive the political agenda, presidency, former Republican House, and check the Republican Senate majority.

The second issue is wide, and philosophical. If Republicans by in large right now represent anti-truth, scorched-earth style partisan politics, this is ultimately the enemy of all decent humans.
This is an ethical position.
It's like if a person decides to attack truth, declaring that it simply doesn't matter. They then rally their anti-truth "troops" to effect change.
And yet, if that same ethical rule is applied to themselves, it falls apart. You lead your troops only to find they lied about joining. You get there and try to enact change but they lied and push for status quo.
Etc. Without reason/logic/truth, it falls apart. This is in opposition to all reasonable people, it is attacking oneself in a philosophical sense. If you know prisoner's dilemma game theory basics (I only know the basics and barely that), what always occurs is that if a system, a government, a community, etc., is well run...there can always be individuals within that system that break the rules for their own (selfish) gain.
So a person who works for a company, but skims a little of the top, for example. Now, if everyone broke the law/rules as they did, there would be nothing to skim, it would be anarchy. But it's because of the good rules and good people who follow them cooperatively, that we have these fairly corruption institutions that function. Every time someone breaks the rules for their own gain, they are ultimately attacking the system that they rely on. Again, attacking themselves. This is the cornerstone of ethics...rules have to apply to everyone, you cannot pick and choose.
These people who break the rules for their own gain, but enjoy the benefits rule followers bring...are the real parasites, the danger.
Someone who we know is struggling that we assist with housing and medical care, are not parasites...they are not unwanted and harmful. The rich, corporation executive who embezzles.that is unwanted and harmful...

If they gain enough supporters who emulate them, it can ruin the entire system. They may claim they want that, and even get it...but they are wrong and we know it.

Lastly, and most obviously, is the more mundane and low-level argument that it's all these rural, fly-over types who continually oppose government safety nets.
These people largely relying on those same social safety nets...support a party that opposes them.

And religions evangelicals, supporting a president and other party members (the Kings and Roy Moore's), who exhibit terrible qualities, because they are getting something in return. These people are attacking the teachings of their prophet/god Jesus, no doubt.

And supporting lower taxes for the ultra-wealthy, which in turn hurts them downstream since the debt will be subsidized by everyone ultimately.

And opposing education when its they who need it most to compete in today's' competitive, global world.

In opposing immigration, when they are nowhere near a border and are not reasonably being impacted to the level that their insane rhetoric and hatred of immigrant reaches. (that one is maybe not attacking themselves? Hard to say).

I appreciate your very thoughtful answer, Mach. I will do my best to try and answer it when I am able.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,803
Reaction score
17,018
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I appreciate your very thoughtful answer, Mach. I will do my best to try and answer it when I am able.

Sure thing, summarize as needed, I know it was long :)
fairly corruption institutions
was supposed to be fairly corruption free...like not rampantly illegal as in a third world...
Our corporations always have some bits of corruption, some political, nepotism, etc., and some crime...but compared to much of the world it follows rules.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,017
Reaction score
52,044
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Recently (this morning) I read the following post by a fellow forum-goer who shall remain nameless:



I have heard this canard time and time again: Conservatives are voting against their interests. Christians are voting against their interests. The White Working Class is voting against its interests. It is something that is repeated regularly within the press enough to merit its own discussion, i.e., the idea that when I go to the polls and cast my vote for a Republican candidate at the local, state or federal levels, I am voting against my interests.

For those who believe conservatives are indeed voting against their interests, that presumes that you know what mine or other conservatives' interests are. So, I would ask anyone who believes this ideological narrative: What are my interests, specifically? What are conservatives' interests in general? And how does voting for conservative policies and politicians go against those interests?

Some people simply believe that it's in everyone's best interest to have government a liberal progressive government decide for them what their best interest is. Liberal progressives, apparently, are smarter, more honest and more open minded than anyone else. Just ask one, they'll be sure to tell you as much.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
49,668
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Some people simply believe that it's in everyone's best interest to have government a liberal progressive government decide for them what their best interest is. Liberal progressives, apparently, are smarter, more honest and more open minded than anyone else. Just ask one, they'll be sure to tell you as much.

Well, if they're not more honest and more open minded - to the extent you typically assume liberals are fungible - why did Mach take the time to post a long and thoughtful answer, while you ignored it only to post a generic "**** libbos" response to Felis?

And if Mach's post is wrong, why on Earth do we find you regularly arguing in defense of corruption by attacking Mueller's investigation (having netted many guilty pleas, a conviction, and plenty more indictments yet to be tested) as a "witch hunt"? Shouldn't everyone be concerned about that kind of corruption no matter whose "team" did it?

:thinking





Ah well, I'm sure all the contradictions make perfect sense to someone who isn't a Hated Liberal Coastal Elite.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
49,668
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Felis, part of the issue is that you are different than most people, in general. You're intellectually curious, and you genuinely appear to try.
Since most people do not posses those qualities, you may very well get caught up in more generalized attacks on [deplorables] that dominate the discussion, and who today drive the political agenda, presidency, former Republican House, and check the Republican Senate majority.

The second issue is wide, and philosophical. If Republicans by in large right now represent anti-truth, scorched-earth style partisan politics, this is ultimately the enemy of all decent humans.
This is an ethical position.
It's like if a person decides to attack truth, declaring that it simply doesn't matter. They then rally their anti-truth "troops" to effect change.
And yet, if that same ethical rule is applied to themselves, it falls apart. You lead your troops only to find they lied about joining. You get there and try to enact change but they lied and push for status quo.
Etc. Without reason/logic/truth, it falls apart. This is in opposition to all reasonable people, it is attacking oneself in a philosophical sense. If you know prisoner's dilemma game theory basics (I only know the basics and barely that), what always occurs is that if a system, a government, a community, etc., is well run...there can always be individuals within that system that break the rules for their own (selfish) gain.
So a person who works for a company, but skims a little of the top, for example. Now, if everyone broke the law/rules as they did, there would be nothing to skim, it would be anarchy. But it's because of the good rules and good people who follow them cooperatively, that we have these fairly corruption institutions that function. Every time someone breaks the rules for their own gain, they are ultimately attacking the system that they rely on. Again, attacking themselves. This is the cornerstone of ethics...rules have to apply to everyone, you cannot pick and choose.
These people who break the rules for their own gain, but enjoy the benefits rule followers bring...are the real parasites, the danger.
Someone who we know is struggling that we assist with housing and medical care, are not parasites...they are not unwanted and harmful. The rich, corporation executive who embezzles.that is unwanted and harmful...

If they gain enough supporters who emulate them, it can ruin the entire system. They may claim they want that, and even get it...but they are wrong and we know it.

Lastly, and most obviously, is the more mundane and low-level argument that it's all these rural, fly-over types who continually oppose government safety nets.
These people largely relying on those same social safety nets...support a party that opposes them.

And religions evangelicals, supporting a president and other party members (the Kings and Roy Moore's), who exhibit terrible qualities, because they are getting something in return. These people are attacking the teachings of their prophet/god Jesus, no doubt.

And supporting lower taxes for the ultra-wealthy, which in turn hurts them downstream since the debt will be subsidized by everyone ultimately.

And opposing education when its they who need it most to compete in today's' competitive, global world.

In opposing immigration, when they are nowhere near a border and are not reasonably being impacted to the level that their insane rhetoric and hatred of immigrant reaches. (that one is maybe not attacking themselves? Hard to say).

On the religious point: some of it is priorities. They may vote for a vile sinner in someone like Trump if they think that person might further some broader rigid religious goal; say, trying to clamp down on abortions. (Though, one must note that very few if any of these religious voters actually follow the bible to the letter or anywhere near it. It's a matter of picking and choosing which mandates are the important ones).
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
33,910
Reaction score
18,788
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Minorities vote against their own interests every time the vote for a Democrat, especially blacks who are no better off than they were 40 years ago.

The democrats tear down the election circus tents and head out of town the morning after the votes are tallied.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,803
Reaction score
17,018
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
On the religious point: some of it is priorities. They may vote for a vile sinner in someone like Trump if they think that person might further some broader rigid religious goal; say, trying to clamp down on abortions. (Though, one must note that very few if any of these religious voters actually follow the bible to the letter or anywhere near it. It's a matter of picking and choosing which mandates are the important ones).

Sinning to get a political agenda passed, I see as a fighting ones beliefs of opposition to sinning. Supporting Roy Moore, terrible stuff.
It's like supporting Satan because he promises to do good things for them, in my view.

I think Christian beliefs as they relate to real things (like abortion or human rights or life, etc.), is all bat-**** crazy, so maybe I'm not the best to understand their unreasonable nuance. Spiritually I can understand religious beliefs and appeal, in trying to better oneself, community, trying to set a good example, and all that.

I find mixing politics and religion to be unethical and wrong.
If Evangelicals are being machiavellian about their support of bad people, to get something they want, I see that as fighting their professed faith...not "what would Jesus do", you know what I mean?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
16,785
Reaction score
10,811
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Recently (this morning) I read the following post by a fellow forum-goer who shall remain nameless:



I have heard this canard time and time again: Conservatives are voting against their interests. Christians are voting against their interests. The White Working Class is voting against its interests. It is something that is repeated regularly within the press enough to merit its own discussion, i.e., the idea that when I go to the polls and cast my vote for a Republican candidate at the local, state or federal levels, I am voting against my interests.

For those who believe conservatives are indeed voting against their interests, that presumes that you know what mine or other conservatives' interests are. So, I would ask anyone who believes this ideological narrative: What are my interests, specifically? What are conservatives' interests in general? And how does voting for conservative policies and politicians go against those interests?

No one can tell you what your interests are and I doubt that you, in fact, do vote against your own interests since you seem to have given it at least some thought. I'd be interested to know how you square conservative policies with your own interests.

I don't know that most conservatives vote against their own interests, but I know for a fact that some do, because I know them personally. Blue collar conservatives especially have a tendency to fall into this category, though certainly not all do. Blue collar conservatives that vote republican are voting for weaker labor unions, lower (or nonexistent) minimum wage, and trickle down economics which historically has always increased the disparity in wealth between employers and employees. They convince themselves either that this will somehow pay off down the road in the form of more jobs, or that these are acceptable sacrifices to make in order to prevent 'big-brother' from turning America into a nanny-state. A pretty steep price to pay for a pretty dubious hope that an unregulated market will somehow make the poor less poor and that the largest corporations won't turn the country into a nanny state just as effectively as big government.

The rest just vote the way they do out of habit: Their parents did it, so they assume it must be right. They assume that republicans are going to take less of their taxable income, giving them a laughably small increase in income in lieu of a true raise in wages. They mistakenly equate republican policies with patriotism. They mistakenly equate democratic policies with 'liberal commie bullcrap.' They mistakenly believe that the "America of yesterday" was some idyllic paradise where the streets were paved with gold, no one paid taxes, and everyone was a tie-wearing conservative. But by far the most common reason that they can all get behind: A fear of 'big brother.'

This is the price we pay for everyone having the freedom to vote. If the majority are not versed in economics and diplomacy, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the government will function in their interest in these areas. And if they vote for someone who tells them only what they want to hear, while working behind the scenes to enrich himself and large corporations who shovel money into his lap in exchange for weakening the power of blue-collar laborers to demand that money for themselves, then they are voting against their own interests.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,352
Reaction score
16,786
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Felis, part of the issue is that you are different than most people, in general. You're intellectually curious, and you genuinely appear to try.
Since most people do not posses those qualities, you may very well get caught up in more generalized attacks on [deplorables] that dominate the discussion, and who today drive the political agenda, presidency, former Republican House, and check the Republican Senate majority.

That is very kind of you to say, Mach. I really appreciate it.

But I do not think I am unique or in some special class of my own of those rare “thoughtful” conservatives. While I will admit there are some very gormless, incurious, and hateful conservatives out there, I do not think they make up a majority or even a plurality of conservatives. Certainly not anymore than people on the left are gormless, incurious and hateful make up a majority or plurality of people on the political left. And certainly, there is no shortage of bile and vitriol on forums like this in which the social consequences of being a nasty, hateful jerk are relatively miniscule outside the forum itself.

However, I have come to find that when the majority of people of any political leaning are approached with a modicum of genuine respect and are not treated with contempt, they tend to open up more and are willing to engage in an honest discussion, and the bile and vitriol they would have otherwise expressed against someone they disagree with tends to evaporate. It is why I do my best (even though I do not always succeed) to show courtesy and respect to everyone I deal with here and in my waking life and to do my best to honestly listen to the thoughts and feelings of other people, especially the people with whom I disagree with politically.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
12,352
Reaction score
16,786
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The second issue is wide, and philosophical. If Republicans by in large right now represent anti-truth, scorched-earth style partisan politics, this is ultimately the enemy of all decent humans.
This is an ethical position.
It's like if a person decides to attack truth, declaring that it simply doesn't matter. They then rally their anti-truth "troops" to effect change.

I agree. It is wrong to lie. It is wrong to ignore the lies of people on your own side of the aisle and not call them out on it. But it is also important to separate “truth” from opinion. Most people think their political opinions are based in absolute truth, and that the other side bases their worldview on either misconceptions or outright lies. I do not think anyone in the current political is innocent of this.


And yet, if that same ethical rule is applied to themselves, it falls apart. You lead your troops only to find they lied about joining. You get there and try to enact change but they lied and push for status quo.
Etc. Without reason/logic/truth, it falls apart. This is in opposition to all reasonable people, it is attacking oneself in a philosophical sense. If you know prisoner's dilemma game theory basics (I only know the basics and barely that), what always occurs is that if a system, a government, a community, etc., is well run...there can always be individuals within that system that break the rules for their own (selfish) gain.

So a person who works for a company, but skims a little of the top, for example. Now, if everyone broke the law/rules as they did, there would be nothing to skim, it would be anarchy. But it's because of the good rules and good people who follow them cooperatively, that we have these fairly corruption institutions that function. Every time someone breaks the rules for their own gain, they are ultimately attacking the system that they rely on. Again, attacking themselves. This is the cornerstone of ethics...rules have to apply to everyone, you cannot pick and choose.

Well, I think I understand what you are getting at, vis-a-vis the prisoners dilemma, and there I agree with you. If you feel that you have to vote for the worst person fielded by your party because you are led to believe that the people on the other side are even more terrible, that does lead to the degeneration of politics as people of increasingly worse character or extreme viewpoints (or both) are elected on both sides of the aisle. But the question is this: Who makes the first sacrifice? Which side says "enough" and stops voting cynically?
 
Top Bottom