9 Comments:

where is the link to the article, and what was the sample of people.

By  Anonymous, at 4:00 PM  

The link is on the "it".

By  Jambo, at 6:57 PM  

TP can't work the Internets

By  Hammer, at 7:44 AM  

It just amazes me that people (those who shop at WalMart) will willingly cast a ballot in a manner so contrary to their economic self interest. Stupidity!!!

By  Anonymous, at 3:48 PM  

I think stupidity is too strong a word, TRR. I suspect that the majority of Wal-Mart-shopping Bush voters would cast their ballots for Bush even if they sincerely believed Bush's economic policy would hurt them. I think it's a question of priority.

I don't know the numbers, but it seems like most voters are single issue voters these days -- the issue might be taxes, abortion, gun control, gay rights, the Iraq war, or anything else you can imagine.

By  Hammer, at 4:04 PM  

My view is that single issue voting is, in a word, stupid. Life is too complex and full of too many shades of gray to not give things the benefit of intellectual analysis. To ignore that and vote for candidate "A" because he/she supports me on my big emotional issue, but does me damage on 97 other really important ones is (sorry) STUPID.

By  Anonymous, at 11:02 AM  

Can it depend on your definition of stupid? Because it might be noble to vote against your economic best interest and in favor of your moral best interest.

Lord knows I hit the sweet spot for the Bush income tax cuts. With 2 kids and just the right amount of income, I was practically a poster child for all the benefits. I still think the tax cut package was bad policy, even though it was in my immediate financial interest. If I was a truly moral person, I suppose I'd take the entirety of my tax cut and gift it to my kids to help make up for the deficits they'll be facing.

No, I'm not that moral.

By  Hammer, at 11:33 AM  

Mea culpa for being too glib. It’s not just a question of economic self interest. My point is that one has to look at the entire picture and consider it carefully. To allow politicians to push your hot button on an emotion laden issue while ignoring the probable short and long term consequences of a set of policies is dumb. And if it’s not dumb, then it’s at least lazy.

I can make a pretty good argument that the logical consequence of a few more years of Bush policies will result in a Hobbesian (“…and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”) future for the US and the world. Perhaps I overstate the case there. But to vote for Bush because he’s against flag burning, or is against gay marriage, or wants to cut taxes – none of which will actually help the average voter in any tangible way – and refuse to give thoughtful consideration to the actual effect of the policies proposed doesn’t make any sense. And people who will support a candidate and cast ballots in such an uninformed way drive me nuts.

Interestingly enough, if you read the post Jambo links to (“it”), you’ll find the 2004 voters for Bush now think that it’s time for the Democrats to control Congress. If that change is the result of some thoughtful analysis, then it’s good. If it’s the result of another round of emotional single issue demagoguery, then it’s bad.

By  Anonymous, at 9:01 AM  

I will also suggest that there are times when a single issue should be predominate. Economic issues in 1932. Slavery/succession in 1860. Terrorism in 2002. I think you could make a pretty good case that by 2010-2012 energy policy will be the predominate issue. Heck, I would try to make the case that a sensible energy policy is the single most important issue facing the nation today. Efficient alternatives to oil:
1. insulates us from terrorism to a degree; at the very least, we can be far more flexible in dealing with oil-producing nations that are generally hostile towards us.
2. protects and expands the economy, by limiting the effects of oil price shocks.
3. protects our continued existence by minimizing the impact of global warming.

By  Hammer, at 9:25 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home