4 ms·

To expand on this a little, even before this hyper-tribalism consumed politics, conservatism has always had an in-group / out-group mentality It has been remar

To expand on this a little, even before this hyper-tribalism consumed politics, conservatism has always had an in-group / out-group mentality It has been remarkably effective to find a niche wedge issue and drive it to the forefront. Abortion, guns, big city crime, religion…the practical impact these issues have on most people’s daily lives is dwarfed by economic policy but it hits the emotional nerve centers and has a crisp message. And that’s how you get people voting against their best interests time and time again

pstuart 1y ago
tl;dr -- make 'em angry and point them at others to hate.
jimmydddd 1y ago
I think the old "har har those dopes are voting against their best interest" is over simplified. It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest. But people are complicated and have many interests beyond immediate simple financial interests.
- krapp 1y ago
  I mean, they're voting against their long term financial interests as well.
- dpkirchner 1y ago
  The only explanations that makes sense are immediate financial reward, standard christian "bring about armageddon/death cult"-ism, or proud ignorance.
  - xnx 1y ago
    Spite / revenge/ "owning the libs". Some people don't care if their lives get worse as long as someone else is suffering even more.
- ARandumGuy 1y ago
  The thing that any "voting against their best interests" critique misses is that most people are willing to vote "against their best interest" if they feel like it's the morally correct thing to do. Like, I'm an adult who never intends to have children, but I still support robust public education. I could make some arguments about how paying taxes for schools is somehow in my best interest. But the reality is I support public education because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I think it will personally benefit me. The thing is, conservatives and Republican voters don't lean that way because they're just too stupid to vote for Democrats. It's because they have a different moral framework. And that's something that can be hard to reconcile and address. Changing someone's political views requires changing their entire worldview, which is incredibly difficult.
  - danaris 1y ago
    I do believe that supporting public education will benefit me. (And I, too, have no children nor any intent to have any.) Robust public education would have gone a long way toward preventing the disaster currently unfolding. The very fact that Trump is aggressively gutting every part of the government that once supported education and science is (indirect) evidence of this. An educated populace makes better decisions, and requires me to spend less time standing out there with a sign stating the painfully obvious.
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      [flagged]
- beardyw 1y ago
  > I think the old "har har those dopes are voting against their best interest" is over simplified. It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest. You can't mischaracterise a phrase and then say it's wrong. That isn't what it means.
- assword 1y ago
  > It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest I blame Clinton and his “it’s the economy stupid” nonsense people believed.
Frost1x 1y ago
I sort of fear tribalism will typically win more and more in the future. There’s a large enough population in the conservative end that’s fine with tribalism. And while there’s certainly a fair share of it on the democratic side, the democratic side tends to lure in educated and anti-authoritarian folks who question things, formulate opinions outside the pack, and will have more difficult electing a cohesive candidate. Meanwhile the Conservative Party targeting religious folks already have a group of people who tend to be OK with just me following whatever it’s told to them without question or with little question.
- ElevenLathe 1y ago
  This is why I think Liberalism is on the outs. Its whole premise is that we can rationally manage society, but there's no romance in this. The Old Left had romance, as did Fascism. Trumpism has a certain amount of it. Abundance and the traditional neoliberal platform of the Democrats simply don't. Only a very small percentage of the population can get their blood up about means-tested social programs. A Democratic party that was serious about winning elections would turn sharply left, get new candidates, and start the long process of selling voters on things that they can feel some romance in: ending suffering, universal childcare, universal healthcare, good union jobs, a struggle to take back our country from the money interests. Imagining a future where we aren't all climate refugees in Northern Canada. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is not serious about winning elections. They keep their fossilized leadership in place while their mental capacity deteriorates until it's simply no longer tenable to pretend that they are capable of governing. Younger candidates are considered a success if they can successfully fundraise, even it they can't actually win the elections that they're fundraising for. In every instance, party operators are out for themselves rather than trying to win and deliver material benefits to voters. Republicans at least win (barely, and usually with some extreme gerrymandering), even if they can't deliver materially. The only alternative I can see right now is a return to the Old Left playbook: a confrontational labor movement. Maybe there are other alternatives that will emerge but I've yet to see one as promising as just organizing your workplace.
  - intended 1y ago
lisper 1y ago
Saying that people are voting against their best interests assumes that you know what those interests are. Maybe what they really want is not what you think they want, or what you think they ought to want. This is an attitude common among liberals. They know best, and if you disagree with them, you are simply wrong. Electing Trump was a big FU to that attitude. The astonishing thing is that liberals are so cocksure of themselves that they have not yet figured out this simple truth and are still carrying on as if Trump were simply an anomaly rather than a predictable response to their own actions. The magnitude of the tone-deafness in the Democratic party is simply staggering. And I'm a Democrat, or at least I was until I realized how utterly incompetent they are. [UPDATE] Ironically, the fact that this comment is being downvoted into oblivion actually demonstrates the very point I am making. [UPDATE2] With regards to my saying that Democrats are incompetent, this is manifestly true at least with regards to 1) winning elections and 2) controlling Donald Trump. Maybe they are competent at other things, but that seems like a bit of a moot point to me under the present circumstances.
- AshleyGrant 1y ago
  I disagree. When it comes to "voting against their best interests," these best interests are not determined at an individual level, but rather through what is in the best interests of that group of individuals. It is provable that, for example, having a strong emergency response infrastructure is in the best interests of the people of the United States, and especially in the best interests of, e.g., Floridians. Natural disasters happen, and having a strong, coordinated response to assist the victims of natural disasters is in society's best interests, even if individuals (generally wrongly) think that they are self-sufficient enough to handle that situation. So what I'm saying is that while folks that are "voting against their best interests" may on an individual level have decided that their best interests are different from the best interests of their neighborhood/region/state/country, it doesn't make them <i>right</i>. A rural voter voting for candidates who will enact policies that will close the only hospital within 100+ miles of where they live is, by definition, voting against their own best interests, as it is in their best interests to have access to that hospital when it becomes necessary, as it could literally be a matter of life or death. Those voters opinions of what might be in their own best interests don't actually matter in terms of determining their best interests, but it matters a lot in terms of getting them to vote against their own best interests. What Democrats are incompetent at is coming up with messaging that stands a chance of being more convincing than the blatant lies and propaganda of the modern Conservative media machine.
liveoneggs 1y ago
I was thinking about the "against their best interest" argument recently and connecting it to the democrats.org "who we serve" page made it even worse than it seemed. Rational people not on the list should avoid them? It appears that they have (finally!) removed that stupid page but it's still linked-to (https://democrats.org/who-we-are/ https://democrats.org/who-we-are/) on their website. Here's a copy from June https://web.archive.org/web/20250615042752/https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250615042752/https://democrats...
- dpkirchner 1y ago
  What's wrong with that page?
  - liveoneggs 1y ago
    if you aren't on the list why would you vote against your interests?
    - dpkirchner 1y ago
      It seems like a broad list. Who's missing that is underrepresented in government and representation?
      - liveoneggs 1y ago
        I assume you are being obtuse or whatever but anyway -- I will attempt clarify a little more. Why did you add qualifiers like "underrepresented" in your reply? I am not on the list. My brother is not. My son is not. Most men I know are not. That's the entire problem with making a list; you can't help but exclude. Do democrats support me and my interests? Have I been voting against my own interests by supporting a party who excludes me from their stated in-group? You can find many articles pointing out problems with that page, which is probably why they finally took it down.

pstuart 1y ago

tl;dr -- make 'em angry and point them at others to hate.

jimmydddd 1y ago

I think the old "har har those dopes are voting against their best interest" is over simplified. It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest. But people are complicated and have many interests beyond immediate simple financial interests.

krapp 1y ago
I mean, they're voting against their long term financial interests as well.
dpkirchner 1y ago
The only explanations that makes sense are immediate financial reward, standard christian "bring about armageddon/death cult"-ism, or proud ignorance.
- xnx 1y ago
  Spite / revenge/ "owning the libs". Some people don't care if their lives get worse as long as someone else is suffering even more.
ARandumGuy 1y ago
The thing that any "voting against their best interests" critique misses is that most people are willing to vote "against their best interest" if they feel like it's the morally correct thing to do. Like, I'm an adult who never intends to have children, but I still support robust public education. I could make some arguments about how paying taxes for schools is somehow in my best interest. But the reality is I support public education because I think it's the right thing to do, not because I think it will personally benefit me. The thing is, conservatives and Republican voters don't lean that way because they're just too stupid to vote for Democrats. It's because they have a different moral framework. And that's something that can be hard to reconcile and address. Changing someone's political views requires changing their entire worldview, which is incredibly difficult.
- danaris 1y ago
  I do believe that supporting public education will benefit me. (And I, too, have no children nor any intent to have any.) Robust public education would have gone a long way toward preventing the disaster currently unfolding. The very fact that Trump is aggressively gutting every part of the government that once supported education and science is (indirect) evidence of this. An educated populace makes better decisions, and requires me to spend less time standing out there with a sign stating the painfully obvious.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    [flagged]
beardyw 1y ago
> I think the old "har har those dopes are voting against their best interest" is over simplified. It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest. You can't mischaracterise a phrase and then say it's wrong. That isn't what it means.
assword 1y ago
> It seems to assume that the only best interest is immediate simple financial self interest I blame Clinton and his “it’s the economy stupid” nonsense people believed.

Frost1x 1y ago

I sort of fear tribalism will typically win more and more in the future. There’s a large enough population in the conservative end that’s fine with tribalism. And while there’s certainly a fair share of it on the democratic side, the democratic side tends to lure in educated and anti-authoritarian folks who question things, formulate opinions outside the pack, and will have more difficult electing a cohesive candidate. Meanwhile the Conservative Party targeting religious folks already have a group of people who tend to be OK with just me following whatever it’s told to them without question or with little question.

ElevenLathe 1y ago
This is why I think Liberalism is on the outs. Its whole premise is that we can rationally manage society, but there's no romance in this. The Old Left had romance, as did Fascism. Trumpism has a certain amount of it. Abundance and the traditional neoliberal platform of the Democrats simply don't. Only a very small percentage of the population can get their blood up about means-tested social programs. A Democratic party that was serious about winning elections would turn sharply left, get new candidates, and start the long process of selling voters on things that they can feel some romance in: ending suffering, universal childcare, universal healthcare, good union jobs, a struggle to take back our country from the money interests. Imagining a future where we aren't all climate refugees in Northern Canada. Unfortunately, the Democratic party is not serious about winning elections. They keep their fossilized leadership in place while their mental capacity deteriorates until it's simply no longer tenable to pretend that they are capable of governing. Younger candidates are considered a success if they can successfully fundraise, even it they can't actually win the elections that they're fundraising for. In every instance, party operators are out for themselves rather than trying to win and deliver material benefits to voters. Republicans at least win (barely, and usually with some extreme gerrymandering), even if they can't deliver materially. The only alternative I can see right now is a return to the Old Left playbook: a confrontational labor movement. Maybe there are other alternatives that will emerge but I've yet to see one as promising as just organizing your workplace.
- intended 1y ago

lisper 1y ago

Saying that people are voting against their best interests assumes that you know what those interests are. Maybe what they really want is not what you think they want, or what you think they ought to want. This is an attitude common among liberals. They know best, and if you disagree with them, you are simply wrong. Electing Trump was a big FU to that attitude. The astonishing thing is that liberals are so cocksure of themselves that they have not yet figured out this simple truth and are still carrying on as if Trump were simply an anomaly rather than a predictable response to their own actions. The magnitude of the tone-deafness in the Democratic party is simply staggering. And I'm a Democrat, or at least I was until I realized how utterly incompetent they are. [UPDATE] Ironically, the fact that this comment is being downvoted into oblivion actually demonstrates the very point I am making. [UPDATE2] With regards to my saying that Democrats are incompetent, this is manifestly true at least with regards to 1) winning elections and 2) controlling Donald Trump. Maybe they are competent at other things, but that seems like a bit of a moot point to me under the present circumstances.

AshleyGrant 1y ago
I disagree. When it comes to "voting against their best interests," these best interests are not determined at an individual level, but rather through what is in the best interests of that group of individuals. It is provable that, for example, having a strong emergency response infrastructure is in the best interests of the people of the United States, and especially in the best interests of, e.g., Floridians. Natural disasters happen, and having a strong, coordinated response to assist the victims of natural disasters is in society's best interests, even if individuals (generally wrongly) think that they are self-sufficient enough to handle that situation. So what I'm saying is that while folks that are "voting against their best interests" may on an individual level have decided that their best interests are different from the best interests of their neighborhood/region/state/country, it doesn't make them <i>right</i>. A rural voter voting for candidates who will enact policies that will close the only hospital within 100+ miles of where they live is, by definition, voting against their own best interests, as it is in their best interests to have access to that hospital when it becomes necessary, as it could literally be a matter of life or death. Those voters opinions of what might be in their own best interests don't actually matter in terms of determining their best interests, but it matters a lot in terms of getting them to vote against their own best interests. What Democrats are incompetent at is coming up with messaging that stands a chance of being more convincing than the blatant lies and propaganda of the modern Conservative media machine.

liveoneggs 1y ago

I was thinking about the "against their best interest" argument recently and connecting it to the democrats.org "who we serve" page made it even worse than it seemed. Rational people not on the list should avoid them? It appears that they have (finally!) removed that stupid page but it's still linked-to (https://democrats.org/who-we-are/ https://democrats.org/who-we-are/) on their website. Here's a copy from June https://web.archive.org/web/20250615042752/https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250615042752/https://democrats...

dpkirchner 1y ago
What's wrong with that page?
- liveoneggs 1y ago
  if you aren't on the list why would you vote against your interests?
  - dpkirchner 1y ago
    It seems like a broad list. Who's missing that is underrepresented in government and representation?
    - liveoneggs 1y ago
      I assume you are being obtuse or whatever but anyway -- I will attempt clarify a little more. Why did you add qualifiers like "underrepresented" in your reply? I am not on the list. My brother is not. My son is not. Most men I know are not. That's the entire problem with making a list; you can't help but exclude. Do democrats support me and my interests? Have I been voting against my own interests by supporting a party who excludes me from their stated in-group? You can find many articles pointing out problems with that page, which is probably why they finally took it down.