13 ms·
I agree with your argument that the metropolis (and the educated elite) creates the wealth that subsidizes the country. But if you are a politician in the non-
by georgeecollins 1y ago
I agree with your argument that the metropolis (and the educated elite) creates the wealth that subsidizes the country. But if you are a politician in the non-metropolis you aren't going to frame it that way. No one wants to hear their region or lifestyle is unimportant. Also, regardless of the true economic value it is clear that lots of people in the US and the UK don't just vote their wallets, they vote their values. IMO Brexit was a populist self-own. It's hard to know what choice is going to make you better off in five years but pretty easy to know which choice makes you feel better about yourself. See: wars!
- LarsDu88 1y agoI used to think all these rural areas voted their values over their wallets, but I'm starting to not be so sure any more. You see this in both Russia and the United States, where these rural and ethnic minority areas of seem to gladly send their children off to war. Liberals like to think this is some sort of quasi-genocidal policy when it applies to the Buryats or the Tuvans, but if you watch the videos of the guys shipping off to war, their happy and smiling. They are happy because they are getting a paycheck! Same deal with illegal immigration in the United States. Christian values are to "do unto others as you would have done to yourself", but Christian conservatives all vote to brutalize immigrants and cut social services (which are all subsidized by California anyways!). Why is this? It's because going to war is a way to get a paycheck in an arguably less shameful way than living off the dole, and kicking illegal immigrants out is kicking out the competition for low wage jobs. People absolutely are voting for their wallets, but in such a way that they don't live with the shame of taking handouts.