Why Do They Vote Against Their Own Interests?

In an earlier provocative posting, Spacedark raised the issue of the place of religion in politics. That post covered a lot of territory, including the way the Republicans use (and I mean that in the worst sense of the word) the conservative religious community, the hostility often displayed from that community toward progressive philosophy, the deep concern of many progressives that they have a way of better communicating their spiritual and moral dimension, and the sources of the right-wing persecution complex.

The sense of being under attack (even though, as Spacedark points out, it's a straw man) is very important. It comes, I think, from what Alvin Toffler called "future shock". In essense, while increasing population and improving technology affect everyone, making our world seem "smaller", "faster" and generally more irritating, the greatest impact is felt by those who previously were relatively priveleged. Particularly in the U.S., we have been raised with the idea that the universal "American dream" was that each generation would have greater opportunity and greater well-being than the generation before. But that concept has begun to be challenged, as "productivity" has exceeded opportunity. No longer are hard work and a good education guarantees of a comfortable life. No longer is a single middle-class income sufficient to maintain a family in the expected life style. And the people who are most disappointed by that are those who were raised to consider it a given, i.e. middle class American white men. The wealthy don't feel it that much because their wealth protects them from it, both literally and figuratively. The poor are certainly affected, but having been raised with low expectations, they are not so surprised by it.

The frustration that accompanies "future shock" and its consequences send people in search of solutions, but those tend to be too systemic for individuals to successfully address. The next best things are (1) comfort and (2) scapegoats. The search for comfort leads directly to religion, among other things. The willingness of both political and religious leaders to exploit xenophobic tendencies, with little regard for their own religious teachings, is in the tradition of the traveling tent-preachers common in the depression era, many of whom were simply con artists. The logical scapegoats are those who are seen as the competitors, the threats to the unrealized expectation, including immigrants, women, minorities and companies who outsource or move overseas. These are not new dynamics. Similar relationships occurred in the late 1800's, as waves of immigration and new technology combined with the backwash from the Civil War and southern reconstruction. The rate of change is no doubt much greater today, though the perception of change is probably not much different. A terrific (and funny) example of the trauma of change in an earlier era comes from the work of James Thurber, discussing his mother's fear of electricity "flowing through the air" (I think that piece is in My Life and Hard Times). The real difference is that today there is not merely a confluence of economic power, government power and religious power; there is an active coordination of these forces.

Now, as then, we are seeing the development of a populist, progressive reform movement in opposition, and it would be tempting to believe that the outcome of that reform movement must be similar to what it was in the early 1900's. I have previously argued that such a happy turn of events is likely, as the regressives paint themselves into an unpopular ideological corner. But there is no guarantee. The forces of xenophobia and repression are not merely powerful and coordinated, but expertly organized, and utterly ruthless. As a Tom DeLay staff memo said (during the Clinton impeachment), "This whole thing about not kicking someone when they are down is BS. Not only do you kick him -- you kick him until he passes out, then beat him over the head with a baseball bat, then roll him up in an old rug and throw him off a cliff into the pound(ing) surf below!!!!!" This is their great "Christian" hero. But failing to practice his religion in his life is not limited to Tom DeLay. What it illustrates is that for the regressive leadership, religion is merely a tool which they affect in order to generate legions of political workers, and which they ignore whenever it is inconvenient.

So, do progressives need to "get religion?" As Spacedark points out, there are plenty of religious progressives, and yet a moral principle among progressives is that we don't impose our faith upon those who have differing religious views. Thus we don't seek to create law that has no basis other than religious teaching. So, we don't need to adopt the tactics of regressives. But we do need to become more comfortable with talking about our morality, which is in fact far more consistent with all of the world's great religious traditions than are right-wing principles. A good beginning can be found in George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant. And, at the same time, we have to recognize that those who have been captured by "future shock" are not listening, because they need to blame someone for their predicament. For the foreseeable future, most of those folks are, regrettably, going to continue to vote against their own interests. Thankfully, they remain a definite minority.

DEMOPHOENIX