Why Poor Whites Vote Against Their Interests

[H. E. Panqui]

Why do poor whites vote against their own interests?

Lyndon Johnson once stated:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”​

This statement is as true now as it was then. Corporations and their rich overlords want to maintain their power and wealth. In order to do that they must offer (through their politicians and media) 'social status.' You may be poor, but at least you aren't these black cityfolk! Or these immigrants! Or these queerfolk! And by the way... those groups are the real threats to society. Let corporate media distract you with black violence porn and scary anecdotes of bearded transwomen leering at your daughter in the public bathroom. Never mind the corporations and rich siphoning off wealth and security from workers. Never mind them whittling away union power. Sure, right-populists may take notice, and may not be too happy about it. But, in the end, it's all worth it if those 'others' get punished.

Until we acknowledge the problem it will continue to fester.

I've never seen you write intelligently/insightfully about the hideous monetary order under which we are effectively enslaved..Ime, you yap about 'corporations' without ever pointing out that bank corporations are the apex corporations...

Ime until a person becomes aware of monetary REALITY their political opinions are ....

 

[element94]

Yep. Richard Nixon was probably the first to realize he could exploit and leverage this country's racism to advance plutocracy. I think he got that idea when he saw Barry Goldwater's unexpected success in the south with his libertarian message of "states' rights". He realized the South was resentful at getting civil rights shoved down its throat, and was more than happy to even step own economic interests if it meant it could go back to keeping blacks as non-citizens. He realized there was a powerful coalition to be made between his plutocrat lobbyists and and these racists. The plutocrats had the money, the racists had the electoral numbers. The racists apparently don't mind living in a plutocratic society, as long as it remains racist; and the plutocrats don't mind living in a racist society, as long as it remains plutocratic.That way each can preserve their own perceived power and privilege in society on the backs of everyone else. Win-win. The modern GOP was born.
Basketful of deplorables: what an apt description.

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
-Kevin Phillips, chief campaign advisor to Richard Nixon and Republican Party strategist, in 1970

You can see how the GOP had started to pick this up and run with it. Here is Lee Atwater, chief campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan and senior Republican Party strategist, to explain in this 1981 interview:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Southern strategy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The "southern strategy" is just the same old anti-freedom (for some), and anti-Constitution vileness of the confederacy, which lives and breathes. Isn't it time it was ousted? There should be very serious consequences for violations of an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Why is it suddenly muddied? We all see what's going on, but it is being allowed by half the electorate, the confederate half! Destroy it once and for all time!

 

[ataraxia]

The "southern strategy" is just the same old anti-freedom (for some), and anti-Constitution vileness of the confederacy, which lives and breathes. Isn't it time it was ousted? There should be very serious consequences for violations of an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Why is it suddenly muddied? We all see what's going on, but it is being allowed by half the electorate, the confederate half! Destroy it once and for all time!

Because it’s clear that the south has won. Jefferson Davis is getting the last laugh.

 

[Michael Cole]

I tend to reject the idea that, sans political and class driven artificial division, people wouldn't be tribal. Obviously tribalism is inherent to human populations. If anything, we're far less tribal in the current political climate than maybe we've ever been. The difference between now and the 80's is that now there are many more tribes and those tribes have the ability to be more vocal and wield political power.

As to why whites specifically seem to gravitate toward the pig slop ragebait pornography Republicans peddle about the constant crisis going on, it's because whites in particular clearly feel some "ownership" of the country which intuitively makes sense given the demographic composition of the country. I don't think this is a problem inherent to American whites, rather, this is a phenomenon that can be observed with any dominant ethnic group in a civilization.

Finally, I think most white Americans still believe in a concept of American exceptionalism and so they believe upper middle class is just within reach if they just work a few extra shifts. This can help explain why progressive politics, which I find generally targets the underclasses, isn't very appealing. There are also subtle cultural variables at play here, like the idea of taking money from the state when you're able to live without it being dishonorable or cowardly.

I don't disagree with the post, but it appears to be a strawman. The argument isn't one of tribal vs independent. The argument is the kind of tribe being exploited, the tribe of race.

Historically, racism is very young. It arguably began with the slave trade. If we go back four millennia+, we see Egyptians tied to their land. The tribe they belonged to was Egypt. Outsiders were seen differently because they weren't from Egypt, not because of the color of their skin. This was the general attitude in the region for millennia. Tribes were loyal to the king who ruled the land. Race was irrelevant.

If we took the country back to the ancient Middle East, our tribe would be American. There would be no black and white tribes. We'd also have a monarch, so we've at least made improvements with democracy. What democracy shows is race can be used to win votes. Is this due to latent racism in voters or are otherwise non-racist people being hoodwinked?

 

[element94]

Because it’s clear that the south has won. Jefferson Davis is getting the last laugh.

For now...

 

[Gozaburo]

Historically, racism is very young. It arguably began with the slave trade. If we go back four millennia+, we see Egyptians tied to their land. The tribe they belonged to was Egypt. Outsiders were seen differently because they weren't from Egypt, not because of the color of their skin. This was the general attitude in the region for millennia. Tribes were loyal to the king who ruled the land. Race was irrelevant.

The modern concept of "race" is obviously just that - modern - and it is a result of globalism. That said, ethnic tribalism has always existed and was the foundation of the first human civilizations and empires. The Roman empire was governed by a imperial Latin majority and when that majority started to become "watered down", there is a resentful historical account of it. Letting Gauls into the senate was a huge deal!

If we took the country back to the ancient Middle East, our tribe would be American. There would be no black and white tribes. We'd also have a monarch, so we've at least made improvements with democracy. What democracy shows is race can be used to win votes. Is this due to latent racism in voters or are otherwise non-racist people being hoodwinked?

No, I disagree. I agree with you that there wouldn't be modern concepts of "race", but the hypothetical your presenting is ridiculous because the creation of "race" as a biological or sociological category was only possible because of globalism. Taking a globalized nation and inserting it into the time period of an antique civilization doesn't make any sense, even if it's a fun thought experiment.

Fundamentally all empires were governed in the fashion I listed above. The empire was ruled by a monarch or emperor - who had a specific lineage - and the capital of that empire was ruled by an aristocratic class, which had a specific lineage.

 

[Michael Cole]

The modern concept of "race" is obviously just that - modern - and it is a result of globalism. That said, ethnic tribalism has always existed and was the foundation of the first human civilizations and empires. The Roman empire was governed by a imperial Latin majority and when that majority started to become "watered down", there is a resentful historical account of it. Letting Gauls into the senate was a huge deal!

None of this is based on race, and race is the argument.

No, I disagree. I agree with you that there wouldn't be modern concepts of "race", but the hypothetical your presenting is ridiculous because the creation of "race" as a biological or sociological category was only possible because of globalism. Taking a globalized nation and inserting it into the time period of an antique civilization doesn't make any sense, even if it's a fun thought experiment.

You'll need to define globalism. Global trade routes, sans the Atlantic, predate writing by many millennia. The rise of white supremacy can be tied to the Atlantic slave trade. Our advances in sailing enabled the slave trade in a newly conquered hemisphere.

We've always had globalism. The only change has been in technology. When the Egyptians conquered Nubia, they brought back black slaves. When they conquered the Levant, they brought back much lighter skinned slaves. When they fought off Libyans, they were depicted as white.

The modern classification of race began with the slave trade. If that's what you mean by globalism, then I fail to see the connection.

Of course the example is theoretical. The example notes the differences in how the world sees race today compared to the vast majority of history.

Fundamentally all empires were governed in the fashion I listed above. The empire was ruled by a monarch or emperor - who had a specific lineage - and the capital of that empire was ruled by an aristocratic class, which had a specific lineage.

Yes, not the point.

Humans existed for millennia without racial tribes. One might conclude that racial tribes are not the default for humans. One might say racism is built on a falsehood.

 

[Gozaburo]

None of this is based on race, and race is the argument.

I'd argue race is just a sloppy attempt to put continental ethnic groups into a single category, which actually does become somewhat relevant in a globalized world.

You'll need to define globalism. Global trade routes, sans the Atlantic, predate writing by many millennia. The rise of white supremacy can be tied to the Atlantic slave trade. Our advances in sailing enabled the slave trade in a newly conquered hemisphere.

We've always had globalism. The only change has been in technology. When the Egyptians conquered Nubia, they brought back black slaves. When they conquered the Levant, they brought back much lighter skinned slaves. When they fought off Libyans, they were depicted as white.

The modern classification of race began with the slave trade. If that's what you mean by globalism, then I fail to see the connection.

Of course the example is theoretical. The example notes the differences in how the world sees race today compared to the vast majority of history.

So in summary yes, I agree race is a modern construct, but that doesn't mean that tribalism based on ethnicity hasn't always existed. Like if anything, ethnicity is one of the most basic building blocks of the original civilizations.

Yes, not the point.

Humans existed for millennia without racial tribes. One might conclude that racial tribes are not the default for humans. One might say racism is built on a falsehood.

Except that those tribes were an ethnic group and they conducted war and built civilizations based on that shared experience. If you prefer a word like "ethnicism" which admittedly doesn't roll of the tongue nearly as well, we can use that.

 

[Grand Mal]

Why do poor whites vote against their own interests?

Lyndon Johnson once stated:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”​

This statement is as true now as it was then. Corporations and their rich overlords want to maintain their power and wealth. In order to do that they must offer (through their politicians and media) 'social status.' You may be poor, but at least you aren't these black cityfolk! Or these immigrants! Or these queerfolk! And by the way... those groups are the real threats to society. Let corporate media distract you with black violence porn and scary anecdotes of bearded transwomen leering at your daughter in the public bathroom. Never mind the corporations and rich siphoning off wealth and security from workers. Never mind them whittling away union power. Sure, right-populists may take notice, and may not be too happy about it. But, in the end, it's all worth it if those 'others' get punished.

Until we acknowledge the problem it will continue to fester.

Know that sign that used to be beside the cash register in every diner? "If you're so smart how come you're not rich?" On the other side it says, "If you're so rich, you must be smart!" So rightists who love to hunt and fish will oppose environmental issues and rightists who twist wrenches for a living will be anti-union because wealthy, powerful people say they should be. And since those wealthy people must be intelligent, the rightists want to appear intelligent themselves by agreeing with them.
And yeah, the need to feel superior to someone. Trash-TV producers have been playing on that for years and it drives a lot of things in the simple-minded sector.

 

[Michael Cole]

I'd argue race is just a sloppy attempt to put continental ethnic groups into a single category, which actually does become somewhat relevant in a globalized world.

Racism and its exploitation by politics is the topic.

So in summary yes, I agree race is a modern construct, but that doesn't mean that tribalism based on ethnicity hasn't always existed. Like if anything, ethnicity is one of the most basic building blocks of the original civilizations.

Ethnicity =/= race.

The Scots hated the Brits who hated the French who hated the Germans. All lily white.

This is the argument I'm making. The Egyptians were tied to their land. To Egypt. Not to any Egyptian skin color.

Except that those tribes were an ethnic group and they conducted war and built civilizations based on that shared experience. If you prefer a word like "ethnicism" which admittedly doesn't roll of the tongue nearly as well, we can use that.

Race and racism are the topic, not tribalism tied to the land.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'd argue race is just a sloppy attempt to put continental ethnic groups into a single category, which actually does become somewhat relevant in a globalized world.



So in summary yes, I agree race is a modern construct, but that doesn't mean that tribalism based on ethnicity hasn't always existed. Like if anything, ethnicity is one of the most basic building blocks of the original civilizations.



Except that those tribes were an ethnic group and they conducted war and built civilizations based on that shared experience. If you prefer a word like "ethnicism" which admittedly doesn't roll of the tongue nearly as well, we can use that.

Racism isn't modern. One could say it's a genetic trait we've had to overcome. Primatologists recognize a series of responses, "See the stranger. Fear the stranger. Hate the stranger. Kill the stranger."
Though yeah, sometimes it seems like ethnic hatred can be stronger than racial hate. Sometimes it seems like the closer the 'stranger' is to you and your tribe, the stronger your fear and hate.

 

[Cameron]

Exactly my point. You see those who disagree with you politically as racists and/or scumbags. Because of that, you'll never understand them, and thus never understand why you lose elections to them.

Dems are constantly being told they misunderstand conservatives, but with every vote conservatives take, every leader they elect, they just prove Dems right. Your post provides nothing of substance to demonstrate the OP is wrong. Maybe the problem isn't Dems misunderstanding conservatives, but conservatives refusing to engage in some basic self-reflection.

You may be right that Dems would win more elections by being less antagonistic toward bigotry, but conservatives will never succeed in making America great until they confront the rot in their ideological movement and the people who are manipulating their hate to do things that are actively destructive to the country.

 

[Gozaburo]

Racism and its exploitation by politics is the topic.

Well yes and I'm saying the category of race really has subtle ethnic roots which globalism has amplified.

Ethnicity =/= race.

The Scots hated the Brits who hated the French who hated the Germans. All lily white.

This is the argument I'm making. The Egyptians were tied to their land. To Egypt. Not to any Egyptian skin color.

I don't think race is just skin color either to be fair. Race has cultural associations as well, but again I grant that separating peoples purely due to melanin content is silly.

Race and racism are the topic, not tribalism tied to the land.

I'll summarize my point briefly:

Racism has its origins in the slave trade, that's true, but that origin comes from the fact that when Europeans landed on Africa, they were presented with a totally asymmetrical civilizational relationship. Caravels and guns met mud huts and no written language in the African interior. Racism doesn't come from some arbitrary statistic like melanin content, but from the legacy and conquest of the African continent where Europeans assumed that this civilizational divide necessarily meant they were almost dealing with a different sub-species of human. This assumptions informs pretty much all racist ideology to this day, not skin color.

 

[Gozaburo]

Racism isn't modern. One could say it's a genetic trait we've had to overcome. Primatologists recognize a series of responses, "See the stranger. Fear the stranger. Hate the stranger. Kill the stranger."
Though yeah, sometimes it seems like ethnic hatred can be stronger than racial hate. Sometimes it seems like the closer the 'stranger' is to you and your tribe, the stronger your fear and hate.

The other poster was arguing race is a relatively modern concept, which is true. As a result, the modern concept of "racism" is also just that - a modern concept.

But tribal hatred based on the "other" is obviously old as time.

 

[NatMorton]

Dems are constantly being told they misunderstand conservatives, but with every vote conservatives take, every leader they elect, they just prove Dems right. Your post provides nothing of substance to demonstrate Dems are wrong. Maybe the problem isn't Dems misunderstanding conservatives, but conservatives refusing to engage in some basic self-reflection.

You may be right that Dems would win more elections by being less antagonistic toward bigotry, but conservatives will never succeed in making America great until they confront the rot in their ideological movement and the people who are manipulating their hate to do things that are actively destructive to the country.

Help me out here. Last November, the Republicans won the House, Senate, and White House, and you think it's the Republicans who are in need of some "basic self-reflection?"

 

[Taylor]

Why do poor whites vote against their own interests?

Lyndon Johnson once stated:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”​

Thanks for reminding me why I'm not a Democrat.

This statement is as true now as it was then. Corporations and their rich overlords want to maintain their power and wealth. In order to do that they must offer (through their politicians and media) 'social status.' You may be poor, but at least you aren't these black cityfolk! Or these immigrants! Or these queerfolk! And by the way... those groups are the real threats to society. Let corporate media distract you with black violence porn and scary anecdotes of bearded transwomen leering at your daughter in the public bathroom. Never mind the corporations and rich siphoning off wealth and security from workers. Never mind them whittling away union power. Sure, right-populists may take notice, and may not be too happy about it. But, in the end, it's all worth it if those 'others' get punished.

Until we acknowledge the problem it will continue to fester.

 

[Cameron]

Help me out here. Last November, the Republicans won the House, Senate, and White House, and you think it's the Republicans who are in need of some "basic self-reflection?"

Yes. If for no other reason than that Trump is currently underwater on every single issue and among every demographic.

Let's take an extreme example of your point NatMorton. In the early 1940s, the Nazi movement had complete control of Germany, had successfully conquered multiple foreign territories, had subjugated an entire ethnic and religious group. Following your logic through to its conclusion, between the Nazis and their opposition, who was in need of greater ideological self-reflection, and what should the opposition have done to combat the Nazis?

Dems may need some practical self-reflection, but conservatives, and yourself, need some moral self-reflection.

 

[BirdinHand]

Mediocre white men will be the downfall of the US.



They think that they are entitled to shit simply for being mediocre white men. Education, jobs, families, money.

And god forbid, the don’t get the spot in the school, on the team, the job, the woman, etc - ESPECIALLY if the person that does get that spot is a minority or LGBT.

Can’t be their insufficiency or inadequacy - has to be “DEI” or “woke” or “those people” fault.

But tribal hatred based on the "other" is obviously old as time

its based on fear and ignorance. Humans also used to believe the sun was the center of the universe and blood letting was a means to cure disease.

Apparently, some people haven’t evolved critical thinking skills

 

[Gozaburo]

Mediocre white men will be the downfall of the US.



They think that they are entitled to shit simply for being mediocre white men. Education, jobs, families, money.

And god forbid, the don’t get the spot in the school, on the team, the job, the woman, etc - ESPECIALLY if the person that does get that spot is a minority or LGBT.

Can’t be their insufficiency or inadequacy - has to be “DEI” or “woke” or “those people” fault.

Mediocre white men were the foundation of the American empire and global liberalism. They won both world wars, the civil war, even the revolution!

I'm personally a huge fan of mediocre white men. What I don't care for is banal populism and ineffective progressive politics which are presented to us as the only political solutions. What we're really sorely lacking is a competent and innovative elite class, which has nothing to do with mediocre white men.

 

[ataraxia]

I'd argue race is just a sloppy attempt to put continental ethnic groups into a single category, which actually does become somewhat relevant in a globalized world.



So in summary yes, I agree race is a modern construct, but that doesn't mean that tribalism based on ethnicity hasn't always existed. Like if anything, ethnicity is one of the most basic building blocks of the original civilizations.



Except that those tribes were an ethnic group and they conducted war and built civilizations based on that shared experience. If you prefer a word like "ethnicism" which admittedly doesn't roll of the tongue nearly as well, we can use that.

The sense of tribalism exists not just in all humans, but all primates. The difference is that, for example, in chimp groups, the tribe is just the group of 80 to 100 individuals that you know personally. Everyone else is outsiders. So how you treat people in your tribe is very different than how you’re allowed to treat anyone outside of that group.

What is different about humans is that they’re capable of more abstract thought and language. So they can put a label on their tribe, and they don’t even have to know the members of that tribe. With one word, whether that religion, or race, or ethnicity, or your favorite sports team, you can shift the tribe to which you have a sense of belonging. With one word, you can belong to a tribe that may be millions or even billions of people strong.

So it is true that racism is a fairly modern construct. But that’s just due to the human ability for creating and thinking an abstract categories. This just seems to be the way that’s been in vogue for the last few centuries. But that’s true of nationalism and ethnicity as well. In the ancient world, people did not think in terms of those categories very much.



In a democracy like America, politicians, corporations, and plutocrats are just exploiting these latest trends and vogues to advance their own personal agenda. They’re doing pretty well, I would say.

 

[ataraxia]

Mediocre white men were the foundation of the American empire and global liberalism. They won both world wars, the civil war, even the revolution!

I'm personally a huge fan of mediocre white men. What I don't care for is banal populism and ineffective progressive politics which are presented to us as the only political solutions. What we're really sorely lacking is a competent and innovative elite class, which has nothing to do with mediocre white men.

The founding fathers of this country were highly educated landowning elites. They were very skeptical of mediocre white men. What made America a superpower in the post-war were highly educated elite Jewish German scientists fleeing the Nazis.

 

[Gozaburo]

The founding fathers of this country were highly educated landowning elites. They were very skeptical of mediocre white men. What made America a superpower in the post-war were highly educated elite Jewish German scientists fleeing the Nazis.

Oh don't get me wrong - I totally subscribe to elite theory and am in general agreement with the FF. I just think elite theory is built on top of the flesh and blood of mediocrity.

 

[ataraxia]

Oh don't get me wrong - I totally subscribe to elite theory and am in general agreement with the FF. I just think elite theory is built on top of the flesh and blood of mediocrity.

That flesh and blood has shown itself to be easily malleable and exploitable for all sorts of purposes. We are witnessing it now.

 

[Gozaburo]

That flesh and blood has shown itself to be easily malleable and exploitable for all sorts of purposes.

As is the case for all plebs.

 

[BirdinHand]

Mediocre white men were the foundation of the American empire and global liberalism. They won both world wars, the civil war, even the revolution!

No, those were not mediocre men.

I'm personally a huge fan of mediocre white men. What I don't care for is banal populism and ineffective progressive politics which are presented to us as the only political solutions. What we're really sorely lacking is a competent and innovative elite class, which has nothing to do with mediocre white men.

No, what we are presented with are mediocre white men who have elected leaders that are exploiting their tribalism for the enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of the many.