Why do people often vote against their own interests?
Angry opponents of the health care reform during a townhall meeting
Americans voicing their anger at the healthcare proposals at a "town hall meeting"
WSJ
Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
5 Comments:
Well, this piece is hardly surprising coming from the BBC. But, the author is missing the point entirely ... once again! Where does Vox Verax find these people anyway?!! The problem in recent elections is not that Americans are voting against their own interests. Most of us see that the policies that have come forth in the last 12 months do not benefit 'the people', but benefit 'the government'.
As I said, I am not surprised this piece came from the BBC. Britons have been addicted to Big Government for decades. The story of Europe since 1945 - in fact, most of the western world - it that invited to choose between government 'security' and freedom, large masses of people vote to dump freedom every time.
But, in America, enough of us still hold true to the ideal that a benevolent government is to never be trusted. Never. Even if that government offers things 'for our own good'. We are not yet addicted to cradle-to-grave entitlements although we are starting to trend very Europe-like with a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that are turning the nation in to a giant Ponzi Scheme - that's the real 'war on children'. And Americans still have the strength to rebuke these notions when it becomes clear our government is not reaching far enough, as the left would explain recent election losses, but that it is reaching too far.
Paul Krugman some years ago wrote that while American conservatives drone on about parochial family values, Eurpoeans actually live it enacting policies that are more 'family friendly' that "government regulations actually allow people to make a desired tradeoff - to modestly lower incomes in return for more time with friends and family". What the good professor failed to notice, however, is that for a continent so 'family friendly', Europe is remarkably short of families. The aggregate European fertility rate is at 1.3 as fo 2008 - the loweest of the low and at a point from which no society has ever recovered. Germany, Spain, Greece and Italy have upsidedown family trees - four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. How can a nobel economist analyze family friendly policies yet fail to notice the result of these policies is that no one has any families?! Europe is so addicted to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare and a dependence on mass immigration to sustain it that these policies have become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the entire world.
America is already on the same grim path, but there are still enough Americans that realize it's better to jump off the train while it's just leaving the station rather than when the train is hurdling down the tracks at 60 MPH on a collision course with oblivion. It's too late for Europe, but not yet for America and these recent election results bear that out. And, it is for these reasons that Americans sometimes can still get it right and see the upshot of these policies does not benefit them, but they benefit the government. "Give poeple plenty and security, and they will fall in to a spiritual torpor" wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant". This is where Europe is today. Hillaire Belloc understood this all the way back 100 years ago in 1912 when he wrote in The Servile State that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population. America certainly has segments of the populace who have thrown in the towel and have given themselves over to the state. But, slivers of hope still remain.
While a lot of Americans are more than willing to cede most of their adult responsibilities to the government, there are still many of us who are not willing to do so and to go it alone in this world as free individuals to operate within our own societal space, assume our responsibilities and exploit our potential to the fullest.
And as long as those of us Americans who still believe in freedom and individual liberty are still around, this country will still have a chance to refrain from falling in to the nature of the European Syndrome of societal destrution.
Dr Runciman doesn't even realize his country has thrown in the towel and there are enough of us Americans who realize it and we will gladly vote against something ostensibly for our benefit when in reality, it actually benefits the government. "Thanks, but no thanks" say us defiant Americas with the audacity to question the annointed president and his policies that are for our benefit.
Recommended reading : George Lakoff’s The Political Mind : Why you can’t understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain
Sadly, how do account for those voters who make their decision based on prejudice … I am not talking about racial or gender or ethnic (my Irish Mother had a real problem with the English) but instead based on silly things like speaking style … Bush was folksy (and programmed to speak in short sentences – and as the author mentioned attacked Gore instead of Gore’s argument) while Gore was a monotone … I knew too many people that would vote for a Democrat on all the downballot races, but the thought of hearing Gore drone on for four years was too much for them to take …. I hear the same comments now about Marty Seifert.
Too often, voters vote on “today” … today I have healthcare and I know what today’s taxes are … tomorrow is tomorrow and “those guys” threaten to change things that will impact me negatively.
On healthcare, the problem is compounded by the fact that many employers provide health insurance as a benefit … if they had just offered a National Healthcare Sales Tax and eliminating the employer involvement (and therefore businesses could reduce the price of their products based on no healthcare costs), it could have been sold.
Mac - it could have been sold if the 2009 health insurance reform legislation was actually a reform. Massachusetts is already under a similar plan proposed in 2009 and by all accounts it has driven up costs, not reduced them in that state. I have asked this question of my friends on the left for the last 9 months - how does merely transferring the cost from the private sector to the public sector reduce the costs? Of course, I never get an answer. I have waxed ad nauseum that reform must include lawsuit reform preventing frivolous litigation in the health care field and we must get rid of pooling which prices individuals out of the market. I agree, get rid of the emplyer deduction and give that to the individual and open up the opportunity for individuals to buy health insurance across state lines. Lastly, introduce real MSA's whereby people can set aside pre-tax money for out of pocket expenses and allow those accounts to rollover. Those damn FSA's end after one year and any unspent money in them is lost. Why in the hell do we do that?!!! Makes no sense whatsoever. In Minnesota, individual health insurance is so expensive because of all the mandates the state puts in policies written in the state - mental health treatment, alcoholism treatment, etc... let me buy a catastrophic policy from any state they want and have a true MSA for out of pocket expenses and insurance can cover routine exams.
Now THAT is what I call 'reform'. And for those that still can't afford that, well, they can go on the government plan which there are myriad plans for the rest.
The problem with government-run health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom. If the government has an interest in curing you, it certainly has an interest in preventing you from needing treatment in the first place. In Britain, government nutritionists are going door-to-door conducting a 'health audit' of the contents of family refridgerators. So, you do this for the 'free' health and in the end, Britons are not even getting the free health care. Under Britain's National Health Service, smokers are denied treatment for heart disease and obese are denied hip and knee replacements. Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it is 'appropriate' to decline treatment on the basis of 'lifestyle choices'. Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners and wonder why his 'lifestyle choices' get a pass, while theirs don't. But, then, that is the point - tyranny is always whimsical.
This is very biased and patronizing of all Americans. I usually like the BBC but they did not do their homework here.
#1 Mass voters voted Republican because the Democrat in the race decided she won after the primaries were over and did not campaign for months. Ted Kennedy, no matter how popular he was, always knew he had to campaign hard.
#2 Massachusetts already has socialized health care, so why would the people of Massachusetts benefit from paying higher taxes for a service they already have?... See More
#3 The US has a history of emphasizing individual rights and liberty well beyond European standards. The US government can be very inefficient and bureaucratic and many American voters voters know not to trust large government programs or politicians estimates. Remember that New Jerseyans were told in the 1950s that tolls were a temporary way to pay off the turnpike and they would go away in a few years.
Shame on the BBC for just implying Americans are stupid and vote against their own interests.
Post a Comment
<< Home