Why working-class people vote conservative

[Ryan Thunder]

"The article" and "working-class people who vote conservative", respectively. My apologies for assuming it was clear from context.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"The article" and "working-class people who vote conservative", respectively. My apologies for assuming it was clear from context.

No, you see, the reason it did not make sense from context is because the article does not conclude that conservatives are stupid, but rather, they have a different temperment with respect to moral values (Ex. they give a shit about sanctity, while liberals view sanctity as irrelevant) and if the left wants to capture these tempermental conservatives, they need to appeal to the moral palate of people with these temperments. They do not need to adopt the same policies, but they need at least a rhetorical shift and possibly a philosophical one.

Nothing in there suggests that conservatives are inherently stupid. Hence the reason your comment made no fucking sense.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way:

I've been reading some C. S. Lewis lately. Any definition of 'stupidity' under which C. S. Lewis can be called 'stupid' makes no sense at all, it just doesn't match up with the way normal human beings use the word 'stupid.' It's 'stupid' being used as a playground insult for things I don't like, not 'stupid' in the sense of 'has a weak mind, lacks mental processing power.'

And yet Lewis was a man who cared very much about the idea of sanctity in his own writing, both his philosophy and his fiction. What he thought was sacred and what wasn't, his specific ideas, all this you can debate over and that's fine. But to understand him at all you have to be able to draw a line in your brain between "thinks some things are sacred" and "is a stupid person."

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't see how you could vote against not only your own interests but those of your fellow citizens without being stupid or disastrously misinformed.

Besides, if I started bleating about things being sacred and therefore inviolate you'd call me stupid, too.

[Akhlut]

Besides, if I started bleating about things being sacred and therefore inviolate you'd call me stupid, too.

Yeah, what sort of idiot thinks human life has its own, inherent value and shouldn't be uselessly wasted for petty personal gain? :v

[Phantasee]

I don't see how you could vote against not only your own interests but those of your fellow citizens without being stupid or disastrously misinformed.

Besides, if I started bleating about things being sacred and therefore inviolate you'd call me stupid, too.

But are they voting against their own interests? They're voting for someone that claims to share their values. On a fundamental level, they're voting for the person that best represents them, or the person that represents what they themselves want to be like (ideals).

People want to be part of a myth, like I said earlier, so they'll vote for the person with the myth closest to their dream.

[Akhlut]

I don't see how you could vote against not only your own interests but those of your fellow citizens without being stupid or disastrously misinformed.

Besides, if I started bleating about things being sacred and therefore inviolate you'd call me stupid, too.

But are they voting against their own interests? They're voting for someone that claims to share their values. On a fundamental level, they're voting for the person that best represents them, or the person that represents what they themselves want to be like (ideals).

People want to be part of a myth, like I said earlier, so they'll vote for the person with the myth closest to their dream.

Well, it depends on how one defines interests; if one uses an economic/class-based definition, then anyone who is poor and votes for a party that has as part of its platform a very pro-business, anti-welfare set of planks, then that's voting against ones interests. But, then again, by that metric, millionaires voting for Democrats are voting against their own interests.

If it is instead interests are based on other factors, such as religious affiliation or immigration policy, well, then their voting becomes a lot more rational if that's what is more important to them. Or if they subscribe to the same economic views, even if they do do material harm to the lower-class person who votes for an anti-welfare candidate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't see how you could vote against not only your own interests but those of your fellow citizens without being stupid or disastrously misinformed.

Well, now I remember why you have a VI title...

A) Once you start considering something to be sacred, your economic interests stop mattering. These are people who, by and large, consider property rights to be more or less inviolate. For something to be sacred, it does not have to be strictly speaking sacred in religious terms.

B) What exactly are their interests? For fuck's sake, the author even made a point of this. If I hold patriotism to be extremely important, is it not in my interest to vote for a candidate who represents me in that way? Of course it does. Someone's interests extend beyond their economic interests, into the ideals they hold. For example, I will readily vote against my strict economic interests to get a candidate into power who supports equality for the LGBT. I will also vote, happily, against my economic interests to see endangered species or whole ecosystems protected, because I hold nature to be sacred in a secular way. I will do this even if those measures raise food prices, remove things I find tasty from the market completely, or massively increase my cost of living.

[madd0ct0r]

The same folks who ran those two shameful failures would run the hospitals? My friend, since when does America reward failure?

Since at least fall 2008, with the first round of bank bailouts. Very likely earlier, if political connections are involved.

Exactly the same people who are currently running the hospitals now will still be there tomorrow. Bad hospitals will still be shut down, good hospitals will prosper, exactly as it is now.

How long did it take King-Drew to be shut down?

The Los Angeles Times did a series of articles on King-Drew.

Perhaps my friend here considers himself better then a police officer? I don't know about you, but I find that idea frightening.

I do not seem to remember the last time I killed someone while breaking into a house to look for drugs sans warrant.

Or the last time I killed someone while reacting to a medical alert pendant.

I'm confused now - are you arguing this from a GOP perspective or a lefty one?

Still my friend, the crux of your argument seems to be this, 'We cannot trust those in authority. They are incompetent and should be removed or avoided'. I ask you my friend, where do you stand on the position of the United States Army? Should we turn it over to market forces?

[Spoonist]

I ask you my friend, where do you stand on the position of the United States Army? Should we turn it over to market forces?

Isn't it a little late to ask that as if it could still be a retorical question?
As in that the trend in the US mil is to turn over more and more and more to private interests under Bush/Obama often to the detriment of the service provided.
Or have I misunderstood something?

[PeZook]

madd0ct0r is arguing like a political candidate should argue for leftist causes in order present them to a conservative audience as something that's in their best interest, and more importantly, as truly American ideals that a self-reliant rugged individualist common-sense fellow could get behind for the greatness of his country.

It's why amigocabal is so hilarious when he doesn't get it and answers rhethoric about how you should trust police with "But cops kill people during drug raids!". Most conservative voters trust the uniform ; In a public speaking setting, amigocabal's answer would actually start alienating a right-wing audience because it slanders the brave uniformed men and women who are fighting a tide of drugs and lawlesness and protesters in order to keep their country great.

[Ryan Thunder]

I don't see how you could vote against not only your own interests but those of your fellow citizens without being stupid or disastrously misinformed.

Well, now I remember why you have a VI title...

Well, now I remember why I tend to think of you as a hyperaggressive cunt without a shred of imagination.

A) Once you start considering something to be sacred, your economic interests stop mattering. These are people who, by and large, consider property rights to be more or less inviolate. For something to be sacred, it does not have to be strictly speaking sacred in religious terms.

B) What exactly are their interests? For fuck's sake, the author even made a point of this. If I hold patriotism to be extremely important, is it not in my interest to vote for a candidate who represents me in that way? Of course it does. Someone's interests extend beyond their economic interests, into the ideals they hold. For example, I will readily vote against my strict economic interests to get a candidate into power who supports equality for the LGBT. I will also vote, happily, against my economic interests to see endangered species or whole ecosystems protected, because I hold nature to be sacred in a secular way. I will do this even if those measures raise food prices, remove things I find tasty from the market completely, or massively increase my cost of living.

Yet, amusingly, you still call the anti-gay marriage lobby despicable people, among other things. They 'merely' hold institutionalized Christian marriage to be sacred, your Constitution be damned.

Not that I'd hold it against you for an instant, but hey, I get it; its different when you do it, right?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, now I remember why I tend to think of you as a hyperaggressive cunt without a shred of imagination.

Why? Because I dont imagine things that are not there, or imagine words coming out of people's mouths? Gee, thank you!

Yet, amusingly, you still call the anti-gay marriage lobby despicable people, among other things. They 'merely' hold institutionalized Christian marriage to be sacred, your Constitution be damned.

Not that I'd hold it against you for an instant, but hey, I get it; its different when you do it, right?

Hear that? That is the sound of the point sailing over your head.

1) I view the lobby as despicable yes, but not necessarily individual voters. Why? Because I try not to commit the Fundamental Attribution Error.

2) Sacredness, as I have already mentioned, does not have to be religious or politically conservative in nature.

3) The Right can capture people who have a high tempermental affinity for things like Sacredness because their rhetoric includes Sacredness, while the political left de-emphasizes it. It is not so much that the voter agrees with what is held Sacred, but that the language of The Sacred resonates with them.

4) If the left wants to capture some portion of these people (like for example, Republicans for Environmental Protection) and bring them over to their side, they need to rhetorically create a unified moral vision that includes things like Sacredness.

It is a bit like the catholic church in 1516. If someone wanted to feel a connection to God, the catholic church was the only game in town, even if they did not like the catholic church very much. Then Martin Luther came along in 1517 and said "hey guys, I have something different that might appeal to you more. Come take a look at my 95 theses". Huge numbers of people who used to be good catholics, stopped being good catholics and became protestants.

Some republicans might go along with the idea that Nature has a Sacredness to it that needs to be protected. Some republicans might be more receptive to gay marriage if instead of emphasizing the unfairness of inequality while opponents cast it as an attack on a sacred institution, it was instead cast as gay people wanting to join in the sacred institution.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Like it or not, there is strong evidence that human evolution favoured superstition as a defence mechanism against the dangers of the world, so it is normative for people to display signs of it.

[madd0ct0r]

madd0ct0r is arguing like a political candidate should argue for leftist causes in order present them to a conservative audience as something that's in their best interest, and more importantly, as truly American ideals that a self-reliant rugged individualist common-sense fellow could get behind for the greatness of his country.

you have no idea how hard it's been not to slip comrade into the sentences, friend.

[Ryan Thunder]

Well, now I remember why I tend to think of you as a hyperaggressive cunt without a shred of imagination.

Why? Because I dont imagine things that are not there, or imagine words coming out of people's mouths? Gee, thank you!

Nah, because the most creative insult you seem to be capable of thinking of is to refer to my title, which is really just lazy. I mean at least have the decency to call me a 'hatfucker' or an 'utter imbecile' or something.

Yet, amusingly, you still call the anti-gay marriage lobby despicable people, among other things. They 'merely' hold institutionalized Christian marriage to be sacred, your Constitution be damned.

Not that I'd hold it against you for an instant, but hey, I get it; its different when you do it, right?

Hear that? That is the sound of the point sailing over your head.

1) I view the lobby as despicable yes, but not necessarily individual voters. Why? Because I try not to commit the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Okay, I accept this, and apologize for distorting your position.

2) Sacredness, as I have already mentioned, does not have to be religious or politically conservative in nature.

3) The Right can capture people who have a high tempermental affinity for things like Sacredness because their rhetoric includes Sacredness, while the political left de-emphasizes it. It is not so much that the voter agrees with what is held Sacred, but that the language of The Sacred resonates with them.

4) If the left wants to capture some portion of these people (like for example, Republicans for Environmental Protection) and bring them over to their side, they need to rhetorically create a unified moral vision that includes things like Sacredness.

Alright, I concede the point. It's worth trying, but having grown up in that mindset myself I'm not sure it'll be enough for some people.

I mean, what got me in the end was that I hold universities in high regard, and one of my classes involved a tutorial where they explained just how fucked we are for resources in the short term. I went in thinking "I'm gonna have a house, a car, and a lawn, and fuck everyone else" and came out thinking "well, shit, how am I gonna make sure I can eat?"

[Alyrium Denryle]

Nah, because the most creative insult you seem to be capable of thinking of is to refer to my title, which is really just lazy. I mean at least have the decency to call me a 'hatfucker' or an 'utter imbecile' or something.

When I have the opportunity, I prefer my insults to be on-point and somewhat topical. For example, when confronted with a street preacher who uses extension plugs to demonstrate proper sexual relations (male and female ends vs male and male etc) I allude to his sexual fetish for triple penetration, and things with three vaginas/penises.

In your case, you had failed to adequately read and understand an article. A note on that + your track record was appropriate. It was not meant to be original, but instead, an appropriate barb, like using a squirt gun to train a puppy that is not behaving appropriately.

Okay, I accept this, and apologize for distorting your position.

No problem. It is an easy mistake to make, which is why I did not rake you over hot coals for it. Afterall, it is not like you see much of my correspondence (verbal or written) about what drives the average anti-gay voter. You mostly see my commentary on the willfull bigotry of their leaders, or on the isolation and denial of information to their children, or on support for flat-out cruelty that should fly in the face of even the most conservative christian and thus demonstates something more malevolent than the simple act of voting against gay marriage. Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is a nasty bigot. That is a simplification. The people who sign up for the AFA newsletter and actively persecute gay people by protesting when one of them gets a job working for a politician... yeah. Bigot. Someone who is swayed by "attack on marriage" rhetoric is not reacting to gayness. They are responding to a fear of change, they are responding to the knee-jerk caveman fear of someone screwing with their religious rituals. The logic that our current marriage practices are in no way traditional just does not occur to them, because they are not well-educated enough, by and large, to know any better. They think that Marriage means Leave it to Beaver where the man and woman are united under the eyes of god, and married for Love. They dont know that the historical reality is not only different, but far more varied, and that marriage rites pre-date abrahamic religions. They are ignorant, not wicked. You can also point this out to them, and they might know you are right, but emotionally it just never sinks in, especially with older people who are set in their ways.

Alright, I concede the point. It's worth trying, but having grown up in that mindset myself I'm not sure it'll be enough for some people.

You wont get everyone, but enough to solidify elections and actually....compete with the GOP for votes in some area.