Political position shifting with self interest

Post Reply New Topic

Thinking for himself allowed Jefferson to arrive at the conclusion he could keep slaves and that's immoral.

It also allowed him to violate and abandon all his notions about small/limited government when he made the Louisiana purchase...

But, I'll cut him a bit of slack on that one. Who can resist a great bargain?

Well, I'll grant you that southern poor whites tend to be more pro-republican. So, there's certainly a regional slant. But as a rule, poor whites everywhere tend to lean republican for the reasons I mentioned. Poor working class whites in MA gave Ted Kennedy's senate seat to a Republican when he died. Then, they turned around and gave the seat to Elizabeth Warren...

I'd say Brown won on personal/aspirational issues (lots of working class whites related to Brown and liked/wanted to be like him). And, I'd say Warren won on populist economic issues...

So, there's a case where you might say the voters switched allegiances based on self interest.

I'd say they voted for Brown based on (economic) hopes and voted for Warren based on (economic) fears...



I'm not sure that a lot of American voters really do what you describe... In the last election, voters overwhelmingly went GOP at a state a federal level. But, at the same time they voted for propositions like raising the minimum wage (I'm pretty sure that measure passed in every state that voted on it).

The irony is, most all those republicans they ALSO voted for were opposed to minimum wage increases.

I think people are a lot more willing to break on specific issues (when possible) but very reluctant to make a total break with their political tribe.

Americans are so marketed. We're defined by the beer and cola we drink, the music we listen to, the sports we watch (or don't) and the party we vote for.

Do you want to be a bud light drinkin', country music listenin', NASCAR watchin', republican votin', good ol' boy, or a micro-brew sipping, hip-hop listening, limp-wristed democrat?

Before and during Reconstruction, the confederate states were dominated by the Democratic Party (and their pro-slavery laws) for generations ( http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan ). Because the party realized in the post-WWII years that supporting slavery was a loss for it, it reinvented itself overnight to play the reverse-racism card, instead.

So... you're saying the Democrat's 'flip flop' on race/slavery was calculated to pander to the poorest, most politically marginalized 11% of the population?

interesting.


How do you interpret the Nixon/Republican southern strategy?

Only that the party shifted its understanding of populist politics to differing groups. All political parties do this as group influences wax and wane, but, in this particular case, it was quite obvious.

Yeah, that's fair and it's the reason why American politics is so tribal on both sides.

Years ago, I took the brass ring from my nose and thought for myself. "Tribal" doesn't describe it by half. It is actually "plantational."

even if I was a millionaire, it is my considered opinion that the GOP would be doing me no favors.