Why do people often vote against their own interests?

BBC has an interesting piece on why American voters often vote against their own interests. It has always boggled my mind since I became a voter back in 1996. At that time I was serving in the US Army and our "leadership" was more interested in mediocre pay increases than peace. I recall asking questions like "who the hell wants to go to combat and war?" The answers from some of the neanderthals I served with told me that maybe some people should not be allowed to vote.




"Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?

It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.

But that would be a mistake.

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best."

ARE YOU SERIOUS? People hate being told what to do.....like not killing one another, or having auto insurance, or paying taxes? America needs a civics lesson in the worst way. We do not live on our own personal islands where our actions do not impact others.

To quote Plato, “People are like dirt. They can either nourish you and help you grow as a person or they can stunt your growth and make you wilt and die.”

A Truly Great Loss to America

The death of Howard Zinn yesterday marks an important point in American history. Howard was not only one of the few honest truth tellers American's could rely on, but a shining example of a true American patriot. He will be missed.


I will leave you with his last op-ed from The Nation (HT Drudge Retort):

"I' ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama's rhetoric; I don't see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies.

As far as disappointments, I wasn't terribly disappointed because I didn't expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that's hardly any different from a Republican--as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. So in that sense, there's no expectation and no disappointment. On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people--and that's been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama's no exception. On healthcare, for example, he starts out with a compromise, and when you start out with a compromise, you end with a compromise of a compromise, which is where we are now.

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction."

Hi, my name is:

Chris Matthews:

Evan Bayh Imparting Wisdom.....

"If you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up."--Bayh Warns "Catastrophe" If Dems Ignore Massachusetts Senate Race Lessons

HT--Extra Bonus Quote of the Day

Jim Cramer Correct? Hell Must Be Getting Chilly

"The market rallied on Tuesday, with the Dow up about 100 points and the Nasdaq and S&P 500 climbing over 1% each. The move seemed to anticipate a Republican win in Massachusetts’ special Senate election, which would kill the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the upper chamber and pause what Wall Street sees as an anti-business agenda."--Cramer: ‘Brown Better Win’ MA Senate Seat

This should not be a surprise to anyone. Obama and Rahm "I sell votes" Emanuel have been running this moderate "change we can believe in" campaign since the inauguration. The White House is not too concerned with what the American people think.....for they can resell this dog feces to the American public again in 2012. Dont believe it?

Michael Steele and Karl Rove are giddy with excitement.....

Michael Steele's Job is Safe

Look at his track record. He is winning elections. It speaks volumes for the Democrats complete inability to deliver the goods they promised to the American public.

There is only enough room for one Rush Limbaugh.....the Democrats are the equivalent of Ann Coulter. Nobody cares.

Yaaaaawwnnnn

I have not posted for some time. I feel like waking up and stretching my arms.