Political position shifting with self interest

Post Reply New Topic

One person I know, they were a "dyed the the wool" X and always voted for X, and switched to Y in the last election. I got the impression, that their position wasn't really founded real substance. Either reactionary or tribalism, and their change was simply becuase it was no longer advantageous for them.

A change in circumstances, can change political views. This isn't always motivated a sudden realisation.

Do you think that your own position is linked to your self interest? In that case does that mean:

1. You haven't considered your opponents, are simply acting in their self interest like yourself so are unlikely to be swayed by you?
2. Is their any position you hold that isn't conducive with your ow self interest?

The vast majority of people probably vote with their own self interest in mind, you just might not agree with what that interest is. You can't blame a person for doing what comes natural tho, we all want the biggest piece of the pie we can get. Have circumstances influenced my beliefs? Sure, you gain wisdom from experience and with that sometimes a new perspective. I realize this when I try to debate with somebody too, that's why I'd much rather work from common ground than to tear each other apart. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar as the saying goes.

As for myself, do I hold any views that go against my self interest? I suppose you might say that but some people's interest go beyond self. What my personal beliefs are doesn't necessitate that I live under those rules, the world exists as it does not how you wish it to be. I do what I have to do to survive as comfortably as I can, I am not a perfect person and I am not without sin so there is no point cutting my nose off to spite my face for consistency's sake.

I don't really have strong political leanings anymore. The way I vote would still cut against some of my more social-liberal leanings but my concerns are really a combination of looming national debt and whether or not people in power understand the state of world affairs. Regardless I don't think there's a party people can win with. Best for each person to pursue their own integrity to the nth degree and when you have to go cast your votes.

I've heard it said often that a country's political leaders are a direct reflection of the populace and if that's the case I simply don't think we'll get much farther until the general public atmosphere regains some kind of positive and human dignity-affirming standards. That has to be real and cohesive, not a lip-service thing.

If you want to learn how human nature is toyed with on a daily basis by those on the left and the right who want to produce this or that outcome, read a sociology text book.

Of course, self interest is just one polarity on a spectrum. Just one potential motivator amongst many. If you want people to think only in an interested way, then you can manipulate their environment in such a way that it encourages and necessitates that kind of thinking.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 10 Jun 2015, 6:44 pm, edited 13 times in total.

It's not unusual for "self interest" and political leanings to go hand-in-hand.

No political party fits my self interest.

I cant even find a lesser evil.

It seems they split up the ideas, each taking a few good ones, and a few horrors.

Once in office they seem to agree that I am wrong.

If we are to have a two party system, and I favor more, it should be men vs women, or under and over thirty-five.

What about shirts vs. skins?

Most people have no political identification and change as time goes on.

Winston Churchill was the most famous person to do that.
He went from being a Conservative MP, to Liberal MP, and finished his political career as a Conservative MP

I don't particularly understand how someone can change too far from where they started (as long as there was no external pressure on them).

I've always been libertarian out of self-interest.

Both popular parties seemed too authoritarian to me (both are authoritarian in their own ways).

Because their self interest has changed.

Also their group of friends change, There is a lot of political tribalism.

I need to explain this question better.

Is there any policy you have that the counter is extremely attractive, tempting, etc?

For instance I'm a competitionist. I believe in patent reform. Intellectual property is misnomer, a privilege wrongly billed as a right (or anything to do with property). You are essentially paying a government or governments for protection. It is protectionism and collusion.

I wouldn't do away with it altogether, but I would severely limit it for a limited non-renewable period, and I would also call a spade a spade. It is a privilege. I think part of the problem, is people don't thin of it like that. They think of it as property, even though it isn't. It is just people don't remember a time before it.

Your ideas are your own, in your head. However the idea that you can prevent someone build on that idea eve bettering it, is just nonsensical and bad for everyone.

However financial security, is something nearly everyone wants. So of course if I had an idea, I would want to exploit it, ad naturally it is tempting to rely on protectionism to do that.

Most voters believe that they are voting their own best interests.

Most voters are stupid.

1.) Yea sure, but the issue is not whether they're acting out of self-interest, but whether the motives behind those self interests actually achieve results in their image. That's where most of their self-interests stem from anyways, is a desire to do good for others, and that society is made better by these self interests. Whether their self-interests actually furthers those altruistic ends... is up for debate.

2.) Err, of course. And it isn't hypocrisy to hold positions opposed to your self-interest. It's only hypocrisy if you do that, and make an exception for yourself, of why you should be exempted from consistency and intellectual honesty.

There's a bit of research that suggests that people vote according to the political brand the most closely identify with or aspire to be like.

This is why a lot of poor whites reject the Democrats, which they associate with minorities/poverty/welfare, and vote Republican, which they associate with whites/economic success/independence.

Many people accuse these poor whites of being stupid and voting against their own self interests, but what they're actually doing when they vote republican is voting their dreams/aspirations.

Doesn't it largely depend where the poor whites are? Poor whites in cities tend to be be a bit more left wing. Also some areas are associated with the trade union movement.

I think there is an element of tribalism, ad conditioning too. There is some peer pressure.

My main interest want more about how people vote when circumstances change, and comparing gradual change to abrupt change.

I am interested in those that change sides. Not swing voter but those who change allegiance.

Exactly.