Disclosure and sex

[Sheilbh]

But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.

Because it's based on the premise that certain people are irrational.

Personally I'd go further.  All people are irrational.

But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?

[Razgovory]

Rationalism is over rated.  Nobody really engages in it.

[Jacob]

But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.

Because it's based on the premise that certain people are irrational.

Personally I'd go further.  All people are irrational.

But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?

I think what Yi is contesting is the claim that the Republican party serves the financial interests of the working class less than the Democratic party does.

Seems to me that if the Republican party is in fact acting against the interests of blue collar workers (in spite of its own rhetoric), then the Frank explanation makes sense. Republican blue collar workers aren't necessarily being irrational, they just place cultural and social issues above economical ones; or they've been misled on economic issues.

On the other hand, if the Republican party does in fact serve the interests of blue collar workers better than the Democratic party then Frank's argument can be seen as insulting because it dismisses blue collar Republican's (in this case correct) analysis of their own economic interest as ignorant.

I guess the Democratic party would be served better by consistently making the case that they serve blue collar interests better rather than to wonder why parts of the working class decide to vote against their own interest.

[Sheilbh]

That's fair, but that's a different argument.  I'm assuming that a limousine liberal would believe that Republican policies hurt the poor and the Democrats help them.  I think that's one of the reasons they are liberals (and to an extent the Franks argument could be read to cover them as well).

So the argument that the Republicans help the poor and the Franks argument is insulting may well be true, it's certainly arguable.  But I don't think it indicates limousine liberal contempt for the poor, because I don't think they believe it.

Franks uses the example of Kathleen Sebelius as a politician who focussed, in Kansas, on school funding, healthcare and the economy.  She won.  I think she was first Democrat governor for years.  So as you say, that's what he argues Democrats need to do in red states.

They weren't offended by Obama's bitter comments because they weren't contemptuous.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, that's a seperate argument.

But I thought we were talking about the working class Shelf.  You switched it to the poor.

[Sheilbh]

But I thought we were talking about the working class Shelf.  You switched it to the poor.

Read as working class then

[Admiral Yi]

Read as working class then

I don't take exception to the Frank's argument because I think Republicans are throwing so much free money at the working class, but because the benefits that Democrats legislate are tailored for very specfic constituencies.  A working class woman can't afford to take six months of unpaid maternity leave; that's tailored for upper middle class professional women.  Similarly Democrats are very good at scratching the backs of Big Labor, but that doesn't do squat for some guy who's not in a union.

[Admiral Yi]

But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?

I never said it was.  But Obama thinks that their real concern is dying middle American industry and they are clinging to guns and religion and beaner hate as a coping mechanism.

[CountDeMoney]

I think what Yi is contesting is the claim that the Republican party serves the financial interests of the working class less than the Democratic party does.

Amazing how even college educated types like Yi still fall for that.

Seems to me that if the Republican party is in fact acting against the interests of blue collar workers (in spite of its own rhetoric), then the Frank explanation makes sense. Republican blue collar workers aren't necessarily being irrational, they just place cultural and social issues above economical ones; or they've been misled on economic issues.

Misled to a degree, but they do place a premium on cultural issues over common sense for foetuses, fags and niggers.

On the other hand, if the Republican party does in fact serve the interests of blue collar workers better than the Democratic party then Frank's argument can be seen as insulting because it dismisses blue collar Republican's (in this case correct) analysis of their own economic interest as ignorant.

I guess the Democratic party would be served better by consistently making the case that they serve blue collar interests better rather than to wonder why parts of the working class decide to vote against their own interest.

Because as long as the GOP hammers home--and the Dems allow it--the concepts of: liberals=commies, unions=bad/guns=good, and that their lot in life will be improved when we send all those dirty Mexicans back to Africa, it's not going to sink in that voting for people who only care for the wealthy, deregulation and the elimination of government, and would hate you if they knew you is not in your best interests.

[CountDeMoney]

A working class woman can't afford to take six months of unpaid maternity leave; that's tailored for upper middle class professional women.  Similarly Democrats are very good at scratching the backs of Big Labor, but that doesn't do squat for some guy who's not in a union.

Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers.  Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.

[Admiral Yi]

Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers.  Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.

How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?

[CountDeMoney]

Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers.  Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.

How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?

Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.

[Admiral Yi]

Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.

Not your weakest response ever, but probably in the top 20.

[CountDeMoney]

Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.

Not your weakest response ever, but probably in the top 20.

  I thought you'd appreciate that one.

It's her company, man.  I'm just the customer.

[Sheilbh]

But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?

I never said it was.  But Obama thinks that their real concern is dying middle American industry and they are clinging to guns and religion and beaner hate as a coping mechanism.

Read the quote again.  He says the communities have had economic problems, they've been failed and let down by their government for decades.  Their unsurprising response has been to turn to certainties (Gods and gun) and against what takes those jobs away (trade and cheap labour).  This isn't a coping mechanism it's an entirely rational response to change.  That's not a controversial analysis.  You may disagree with it, but it's not earth-shattering.

I think it's similar to the reasons people think Labour voters are more likely to turn to the BNP than Tories.  It's pretty reasonable.

On the other point, that's an interesting idea.  But I would note that some states, all Democrat strongholds, do have mandatory paid maternity leave and it was supported - though not enacted - by Sebelius, who is Franks' model.  So perhaps that is a way to go.