Movie on Hulu: What's the Matter With Kansas

[bean]

Watching now. A great exposition of how working class people are motivated to vote against their own interests.

My question is have the social issues that are wedge issues ever changed because one party was elected? Do people who vote their faith expect these changes? They never seem to come.

It seems to me that these issues are used to fool people into voting for economic philosophies that won't benefit them.

[Darrell]

Quote:have the social issues that are wedge issues ever changed because one party was elected?

See also: Slavery.

[myotch]

The first time I heard Michael Moore complaining that the majority of Republican voters "vote against their interest", I thought it very clever and that it might catch on.

I'll have to take a look at the movie, bean, but I don't see how people voting for tax cuts across the board, or people who don't want to see successful people punished by a punitive tax system are gullible dupes "voting against their interests".

I would venture to say that of all "interests" one may have in an election, taxing and spending policies are just two.

If a politician told me he was going to make it law that a rich guy was going to have the bejeebers taxed out of him and that the majority of that revenue was going to come to me in the form of a check, I guess voting against that politician would be voting against my own economic self-interest. On the other hand, voting for that politician based on that promise would be an act of greed that would betray my envy of that rich guy. Which decision to make?

[bean]

Yeah, you should watch the movie. It was fascinating, I thought.

It was some people from a lot of different socioeconomic groups--a couple whose husband was a doctor. A regular farmer (not someone who owns 54 farms and a house with a car elevator)...some other folks with a kid heading to college, lots of people in very basic economic conditions for the most part. They showed how years back, in most Kansas towns, those with money would live right along side those with little. No more. The wealthy are in their little enclaves and neighborhoods, and much of the rest of them are in marginal housing.

The film made the point that much of the state is mired in rural poverty, they would willingly choose someone who would not make one iota difference in that circumstance and instead voted "their faith." None of the issues that are important to these people faith wise ever come CLOSE to being addressed. Bush's second term was in 04 and social issues played to the base--but had zip to do with what he was trying to accomplish.

These are people who would have largely voted democratic or liberal 40 years ago. Kansas has a long populist tradition going back to the 1800s. But it's changed. Lee Atwater I believe along with other GOP strategists in the 80's (learned this in the book Stealing Jesus) basically took these social issues and made em "dividing lines." There's no intention of actually doing anything about these things, mind you. It's a way to get the poor and working class on your side.

Why else would those people support politicians who essentially team up with the big investment banks to create rules that make it no problem to take advantage of people in financial trouble (e.g. housing...mortgages...usury?) Why would your "basic farmer"support politicians who go to DC and create farm bills that benefit conglomerate farms with 54 separate holdings, but gives the shaft to the guy trying to raise 800 acres of wheat and cattle?

Taxing someone and promising YOU the proceeds is a little oversimplified. Asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little more, being fiscally responsible and paying down the debt, and making sure safety nets are in place for the poorest among us is not "robin hood economics."

Again, it's probably worldview and mindset. These people probably believe to some degree that electing conservatives will also help them economically. I believe they are being duped, but that's just me, I guess.

It makes sense to me because about five years ago I was a very conservative person in most ways and was taking a summer class in US History. We were examining the Gilded Age and was shown how we are right back in that time now--the big money interests can do whatever they want, there were so few rules about how they operated, taxes at historic lows, and numbers of people in poverty in record highs. I said one day at lunch "That might be, but I vote my faith. There are some issues which cannot overcome that." To which one of the seminar fellows said "And look how much gets done on these issues. Has it ever occurred to you that you are being played?"

I took his words and went home and read. I read, and read, and read. I came to the conclusion that the people I had been supporting really were not interested in my best interest, nor were they looking out for my students. They were there to grease the wheels of the wealthy.

I have been a progressive ever since.

[myotch]

I can happily admit a lot of politics is about manipulation. It's one of the reasons I don't identify myself as a social conservative, even if on a personal level I agree with them.

It's quite another thing to become progressive upon that type of revelation.

Could it be possible that you've simply traded one form of ma.ipulation for another? It seems that some of your antagonism towarda financially successful people are as likely to get solved as some of those pet conservative issues

[bean]

I think I came into it honestly. It was a period of my life that opened up LOTS of questioning. It really was also a big step in my leaving fundamentalism. All the doubts kind of came together at once.

To each their own! And while my heart tells me we can do better as a society, my head tells me that the system is broken and as much as I want to fix it, it will not be. There is lots to be said for capitalism, provided safeguards are in place to protect people. And I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with making money. I just think the system needs to work for more people. Priorities, if you will.

[DaisyDeadhead]

Didn't watch the video, but is that based on Thomas Frank's book of the same name? Really good book, also recommend his book titled, "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule".

[bean]

Yep, it's based on his book. I watched it all Friday. It was amazing. It pretty much just puts it out there and if you are thinking for yourself you can connect your own dots pretty fast.

I really connected with the farmer who couldn't understand why working class people need to continue to get kicked in the ass to support the ruling wealthy.

I liken it to the kids who will never really be in the clique in high school but are the true followers, doing the bidding of their leaders.

[bean]

Okay Darrell, that was an issue that was important to people and it did get changed.

My personal opinion is the wealthy and elite are using these issues to convince working class people to go along with economic policies that will NEVER benefit them under the guise of "fixing" these issues.

See Also:
Abortion
Teh Gayz
Illegal Immigration

(08-16-2012 12:39 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

Quote:have the social issues that are wedge issues ever changed because one party was elected?

See also: Slavery.

[myotch]

(08-19-2012 04:59 PM)bean Wrote:  Okay Darrell, that was an issue that was important to people and it did get changed.

My personal opinion is the wealthy and elite are using these issues to convince working class people to go along with economic policies that will NEVER benefit them under the guise of "fixing" these issues.

See Also:
Abortion
Teh Gayz
Illegal Immigration

(08-16-2012 12:39 PM)Darrell Wrote:  See also: Slavery.

Economic inequity is a "problem" that just doesn't seem to get solved. Could this be how your side exacerbates the manipulation?