Why do Conservatives Vote Against Their Own Interests?

[CityGirl]

Here is a perspective in response to the OP

The author (Robert Weiner) is correct in identifying in his January 28, 2012 piece " inaccurately perceived self interest" as the reason conservatives consistently vote against their own interests. However, giving this as the sole answer, in my mind only deepens the mystery by begging an even larger question of: Why it is that (mostly working class white) conservatives "consistently," and "inaccurately," misperceive what is in their own self-interest? I believe the answer to the first question lies in answering this slightly larger and deeper one, one that lies firmly in the racial subtext of American politics and society.

The following bit of history may in part help get to the bottom of this issue:

Since the Civil War, there have been two predicates that define the kind of white tribalism that now best defines the conservative movement: the ability to objectively separate whiteness from other races by economics and social means; and the ability to continue maintaining in a "steady state," the distance that measures this racial separation.

Arguably, since slavery in general and the Bacon Rebellion in particular, one of the most successful economic "sleights of hand" and "political wedges" ever invented in the American political arena takes advantage of these two predicates. It has been to convince working class whites that their economic interests lie, not in solidarity with members of other (non-white) working class peoples, but with members of the producer (or ruling) classes. It is this two-century old race-based wedge, still mediating across classes, that is the proper answer to Mr. Weiner's question. In fact it is this anomaly of race that even befuddled Marx in his economic analysis of America's capitalist economy.

At least since Strom Thurmond and the Dixicrats took over the Republican Party in 1948, and their leadership was reaffirmed again in Nixon's 1968 Southern Strategy, this political wedge, this economic and tribal sleight of hand, has been codified as a central part of Republican and conservative ideological orthodoxy.

As a result of it, effectively there is no narrative for the working class in either conservative ideology or the Republican Party. To preserve their racial identity, working class conservatives, line up like ten soldiers behind the interests of those whose best interests are exactly the opposite of working class interests. They do so like lemmings because to even suggest that there might be mutual worker's interests (whether economic or social) that would straddle the racial divide, is to commit tribal heresy by fundamentally betraying and trampling upon the last vestige of sacred white tribal ground.

Put simply, it is the issue of race that is the primary underlying reason conservatives purposefully misperceive their own interests. It is because of race that Republicans have no platform to address working class economic issues. And it is because of race that "faux blue collar populists" like the "Tea Party," or Pat Buchanan and now Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, are forced to dip into the racial undercurrents to mine old stale coded emotional issues of racial hatred, reframing them as "cultural" and "values" issues.

No one is fooled by their repeated "tribal winks" "coded language," and "dog whistle signals, because we know the source: deep structure, sublimated racism. Thus, in the end the conservative misperception is a strategic misperception, one that continues to preserve the integrity of what remains a dying form of white racial tribal solidarity.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/One-Possible-answer-to-the-by-Herbert-Calhoun-120130-218.html

 

[MoonOwl]

A vote for Ron is still a vote against your best interests IMO

Some of them. This is true. But, and why I supported him last go around, he's for putting the American people first, second & third. No other nation, no corporation, but We The People.

One of the biggest reasons I'd love for him to become President is that when he too sells out perhaps it will give every single one of us a vague clue as to exactly how entrenched the sold-out status quo really is. Heck, he's the only candidate I've ever heard say he can't promise he too won't be assimilated into it if elected.

I think we all know Barack will win the election come November. The same ole, same ole will indeed continue. To quote The Who, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. He certainly hasn't repaired the damage done by the last administration. If anything, he's forwarded the agenda. Just as he's been directed to do.

With electronic vote fraud in the bag, nothing will change for the better until we change it. That's gonna happen.... lol

 

[Panacea]

Some of them. This is true. But, and why I supported him last go around, he's for putting the American people first, second & third. No other nation, no corporation, but We The People.

One of the biggest reasons I'd love for him to become President is that when he too sells out perhaps it will give every single one of us a vague clue as to exactly how entrenched the sold-out status quo really is. Heck, he's the only candidate I've ever heard say he can't promise he too won't be assimilated into it if elected.

I think we all know Barack will win the election come November. The same ole, same ole will indeed continue. To quote The Who, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. He certainly hasn't repaired the damage done by the last administration. If anything, he's forwarded the agenda. Just as he's been directed to do.

With electronic vote fraud in the bag, nothing will change for the better until we change it. That's gonna happen.... lol

I'm not so sure he will, I think a lot of it depends on if and when a republican nominee takes the forefront. I think Gingrich and Romney both have a solid shot at winning enough votes.

 

[MoonOwl]

Well, if either of them do indeed win the election, we can be certain nothing good will change.

Newt is a huge hypocrite and completely sold to the corporate masters. Mitt is sold out too. So, the 'face' may be different, but the 'direction' will continue.

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe........ Our "Owners" have deemed it so. Damn, I miss George Carlin.....

 

[Panacea]

It's certainly true. I think some people don't even know what their best interests are, let alone which candidates even pretend to care about them. It's right to want the country in the hands of the people, but it already is! The people have decided they don't want control, they want left or right to hold their leash.

 

[MoonOwl]

hehehehehehehehehehehe...... Indeed. Hence why nothing will ever really change.:tooth

 

[MoonOwl]

Well, I voted yesterday. Ron got a steady 7% of the votes all night long. Not 6%, not 8% but a steady 7%....:24:

Had we gone on signage, Ron would have won followed by Rick then Mitt. I have yet to see a Newt sign and saw a Mitt sign (along w/Ron) near the polling place.

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[banned]

 

[Minor Axis]

A flat tax ensures that.

So does a progressive tax, when you take away the loopholes...

 

[Accountable]

So does a progressive tax, when you take away the loopholes...

I think we can agree that it's the loopholes that make the difference. Take away deductions (except for $X per person for living) and charge all income as income (including capital gains) and I think we'll be okay. It would definitely increase revenue. Heck, if you just have to get progressive or you can't sleep at night, take away the personal exemptions for people who make over a certain amount.

Some people actually think that if you get a raise that puts you just barely into a higher tax bracket, then you will pay so much more in taxes that you will actually net less per year. That's ridiculous, of course, but if everybody pays the same rate that myth goes away and even stupid people will see the value in working harder to get a raise.

 

[Minor Axis]

I think we can agree that it's the loopholes that make the difference. Take away deductions (except for $X per person for living) and charge all income as income (including capital gains) and I think we'll be okay. It would definitely increase revenue. Heck, if you just have to get progressive or you can't sleep at night, take away the personal exemptions for people who make over a certain amount.

Some people actually think that if you get a raise that puts you just barely into a higher tax bracket, then you will pay so much more in taxes that you will actually net less per year. That's ridiculous, of course, but if everybody pays the same rate that myth goes away and even stupid people will see the value in working harder to get a raise.

I agree about loopholes.

My counter is that the tax code should not be formulated to make stupid people happy. If you believe government has a role and you understand average people today don't have as nearly as much money as they did 40 years, then those who have benefited by changes in our economy CAN afford to pay more out of their cushy life style. I do believe everyone should pay something, however I temper that argument with my belief that the budget can't be balanced on the backs of those barely getting by.

 

[Tim]

I think we can agree that it's the loopholes that make the difference. Take away deductions (except for $X per person for living) and charge all income as income (including capital gains) and I think we'll be okay. It would definitely increase revenue. Heck, if you just have to get progressive or you can't sleep at night, take away the personal exemptions for people who make over a certain amount.

Some people actually think that if you get a raise that puts you just barely into a higher tax bracket, then you will pay so much more in taxes that you will actually net less per year. That's ridiculous, of course, but if everybody pays the same rate that myth goes away and even stupid people will see the value in working harder to get a raise.

So would you be against a progressive tax rate with zero loop holes?

Or do you only advocate for a flat tax, meaning one flat percentage no matter what you make?

 

[Alien Allen]

I agree about loopholes.

My counter is that the tax code should not be formulated to make stupid people happy. If you believe government has a role and you understand average people today don't have as nearly as much money as they did 40 years, then those who have benefited by changes in our economy CAN afford to pay more out of their cushy life style. I do believe everyone should pay something, however I temper that argument with my belief that the budget can't be balanced on the backs of those barely getting by.

You appear to think that you can balance the budget on the backs of the rich. Which even if you taxed them at 100% would fail to do so. Unless other measures are taken then it is just putting a band aid on a slit throat.

 

[Tim]

You appear to think that you can balance the budget on the backs of the rich. Which even if you taxed them at 100% would fail to do so. Unless other measures are taken then it is just putting a band aid on a slit throat.

I would not advocate this... but you are wrong. You could absolutely balance the budget by taxing the wealthy at 100%. You make it seem like our deficit is larger than the combined income of the wealthy, it's not

 

[Stone]

You appear to think that you can balance the budget on the backs of the rich. Which even if you taxed them at 100% would fail to do so. Unless other measures are taken then it is just putting a band aid on a slit throat.

Which even if you taxed them at 100% would fail to do so. Unless other measures are taken then it is just putting a band aid on a slit throat.

Agreed.
Like talking to a wall, isn't it.

 

[Minor Axis]

You appear to think that you can balance the budget on the backs of the rich. Which even if you taxed them at 100% would fail to do so. Unless other measures are taken then it is just putting a band aid on a slit throat.

No, that is your knee jerk reaction/assumption regarding anyone who supports a progressive tax code.

Agreed.
Like talking to a wall, isn't it.

Don't be so smug Mr. Superior, lol.

 

[Stone]

I would not advocate this... but you are wrong. You could absolutely balance the budget by taxing the wealthy at 100%. You make it seem like our deficit is larger than the combined income of the wealthy, it's not

Depends upon whom you call 'wealthy'.

If you confiscate all the wealth of the Forbes 400, wealth ranging from $50billion to $1.05 billion in personal assets ......it's not enough to cover the 2011 budget deficit.
These are the people that most identify as being the scalpers of society.
If you tax their income at 100% you're collecting even less revenue.
Tax them at 45% the revenue declines even more.
So taxation increases would logically have to dip into the upper middle class.

 

[Stone]

.....................

Don't be so smug Mr. Superior, lol.

 

[Minor Axis]

Depends upon whom you call 'wealthy'.

If you confiscate all the wealth of the Forbes 400, wealth ranging from $50billion to $1.05 billion in personal assets ......it's not enough to cover the 2011 budget deficit.
These are the people that most identify as being the scalpers of society.
If you tax their income at 100% you're collecting even less revenue.
Tax them at 45% the revenue declines even more.
So taxation increases would logically have to dip into the upper middle class.

No one is suggestion balancing the budget on the backs of the wealth, only insisting that the wealthiest in society can afford to put more into the kitty than they currently do. The insistence by GOP that the wealthy pay to much is pure and simple pandering to their cherished base and saying FU to the rest of us.