[k-mcgrady]

>> "I don't understand the American (and it is American) obsession with having a free market in healthcare."

I think part of it is the culture of believing you can be anything you want to be. It's the same reason the poor often vote against their interests in the US - they believe that soon they'll be rich and want low taxes and few regulations. That they are the exception.

[refurb]

If you want those people to change how they vote you need to stop talking down to them. "Hey stupid! You're voting for people that hurt you."

Or then again, maybe they just have a different opinion than you on what is important to them?

[gonvaled]

Surely nobody can be tricked onto supporting positions contrary to his interests. That would be impossible, since people are rational, educated and perfectly informed.

There is a minority of people who are actually completely out of touch with reality, so-called demagogues and populists, and to a less extent all politians: they are completely deluded in thinking that by repeating a point a thousand times they can mislead those perfectly informed masses.

[enraged_camel]

If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests, with the belief that their vote will actually benefit them, then yes, they absolutely deserve contempt.

As the saying goes: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." A large part of the American populace has been getting fooled repeatedly for decades.

[mindcrime]

If someone continuously keeps getting tricked into voting against their own self-interests

It has not been established that they are voting against their own self-interests. You are just assuming you know what their interests are better than they do.

[mindcrime]

It's the same reason the poor often vote against their interests

Wow, into being condescending much? How about this... maybe, just maybe those people know what "their interests" are better than you or I. Have you considered that?

[iends]

Not sure why this offends you so much, but drive an hour outside the Triangle and it is pretty easy to find people at or near poverty level who want the government to cut social programs and taxes even though they are the ones who mostly benefit.

[muhfuhkuh]

I live in the Triangle, and driven to such far-flung locales in NC as Advance, Roxboro, and Eden. The people I've interacted with (however limited) are ardently political in the conservative direction for reasons other than fiscal.

Many are hunters, or serve(d) or have family in the armed forces, or just grew up around guns. They remember, before the big-box stores came along, when the town hardware and general stores sold shotguns, rifles, and ammo. They see the liberals in SF Chicago and NYC wanting to stop their multi-generationally deep and rich tradition in hunting and defending and baring arms. If there is one rail that should never be touched, one single-issue that will move that type of voter, it is preserving the 2nd amendment. I mean, sure, you don't have to worship it and Hillary won't have to sit there holding an AKM-74 with 100-round drum mag to pander for votes, but just don't go after it with such vigor and I can bet dollars to donuts that you can win over at least 40% of the voters 1 hour outside the Triangle.

They vote republican not for their non-existent tax breaks or wait in bated breath for their drip of the trickle-down. They're savvy enough that that junk has been tried all over the country and has mostly failed (in the case of Kansas, utterly and miserably with negative job growth). They just don't want you to mess with their traditions.

I mean, these folks don't even care to fight over marriage equality, either. You don't see much gay-bashing in these areas. They simply don't care. Ditto abortion. Sure, there are ardent bible-thumpers, but on the whole, they are nuanced enough to know that we don't want a nation filled with unwanted children.

So, really, don't mess with THEIR rights (guns), and they won't vote against their own interests. I can't get why a lot of democrats (both politicians and voters) can't see that. I _know_ that democrats and liberals are about as far from single-issue voters as you can get, so they'll be kinda-sorta bummed that guns aren't the big focus for legislation, but it would certainly NOT be the end of the world.

[chrisseaton]

Nobody's arguing they aren't possibly voting for something that isn't in their immediate economic interests. But we can argue about their motivations.

Someone's said that it's because one day they think they'll be rich, and suggested that this was foolish. An alternative explanation is that they're voting for it because they've considered the question very carefully and are voting for what they think is morally the right thing, even though it'll harm them. In which case it's far from foolish.

I think the offence was taken in assuming the foolish explanation instead considering the one where people were making a sacrifice to do what they think is the right thing.

We don't know unless we ask them, of course.

[mindcrime]

I'm not offended at all, just wondering why somebody would choose such a condescending tack. Again I ask, have we considered that maybe those poor people that you're referring to, know what is in their "best interests" better than we do. Perhaps they have perfectly rational reasons, maybe other than simple economic self interest, for voting against social programs and taxes.

This whole mindset of "you're too stupid to know what's good for you, so just let us smart people be in control and make things OK" is something that is very condescending and is repugnant to many (most?) Americans. Which is one good reason it's hard for politicians pushing such policies to gain ground. It might be better to actually, you know, talk to those people and try to understand what their principles, goals, and motivations are, instead of assuming that they're stupid.

[enraged_camel]

>>Again I ask, have we considered that maybe those poor people that you're referring to, know what is in their "best interests" better than we do.

I have considered that notion for a long time, but ultimately dismissed it as pure nonsense. The fact of the matter is that people can be tricked and be taken advantage of. It is not condescending to point that out when it happens.

If someone gets conned into transferring all the money in their bank account to a stranger in Nigeria on the belief that it will "free up" millions that will be theirs, you cannot possibly make the argument that pointing out they got conned is condescending, that maybe that person knew what was actually in their best interest. They thought they knew, but they were, frankly, wrong.

The exact same thing happens with many poor people in our society: they get conned into voting for politicians who will absolutely screw them over. Furthermore, it doesn't happen once or twice. It happens repeatedly. And again, pointing this out is not condescending. It's just the truth.

[mindcrime]

I have considered that notion for a long time, but ultimately dismissed it as pure nonsense.

Alright, glad we have you here to save all the stupid poor people from themselves. After all, if someone is poor, they must be stupid. Or lazy. Or both. FSM knows, they need some philosopher-kings to come along and show them the light.

[k-mcgrady]

You realise you're the only person in this thread that is classifying poor people as 'stupid'? Nobody else has. You're the one making lazy generalisations and it's not adding anything to the discussion.

[enraged_camel]

Please respond to the entirety of my post instead of cherry-picking, thanks.

[ionised]

I didn't read that as condescending towards poorer people, but more an critical observation of the US political system.