What a great article—thoughtful, convincing, and fair-minded.
Your point about the limits of self-interest reminds me of my favorite David Hume essay, “Of the First Principles of Government.” Hume argues that people don’t just support their leaders out of self-interest. A leader can only support my interests if they’re in power. But to get power, a leader has to win the “implicit submission” of the general population, not just me. So leaders must either appeal to the *general* interest or to people’s sense of morality (“opinion of right” and “opinion of property”).
It’s a beautifully simple argument. And it’s Hume, so it’s beautifully written, too.
The thing about this phrase is that it is a true window into an ugly mentality. It presumes to tell grown men and women what their values should be, with the implication that they are too stupid to understand what their betters know to be the right thing, haughtily explained. The condescension is unbearable regardless of the policies in question, and they will not be more attractive just because those same betters change their messaging. The contempt is obvious even if unspoken. If those are good policies, then someone with a better civic attitude is going to have to be the one to persuade and implement them.
The other somewhat ugly assumption baked into this complaint is the notion that we should be voting in our own interest, rather than the national interest.
I would much rather be honest about my interests, and reason with my fellow citizens from a standpoint of honesty, then claim to be acting in "the national interest" which tends inevitably to be an imposition of my own values. As here.
Trudeau and Carney are showing the RIGHT way to fight Trump. After doing the same old Democrat thing for years, shouting nonsense about "democracy", they suddenly got serious and started SERVING THEIR OWN PEOPLE in actions instead of words. Now the Canadian Conservatives are stuck without a counterargument because the people don't need an alternative to the RIGHT THING.
If Democrats had been serving the people like FDR instead of serving Wall Street, Trump wouldn't have gained any traction in 2016. If Obama had turned down TARP and ZIRP, and enacted Medicare For All instead of Romneycare, his successor would have been elected easily. And his successor would have been Bernie, not Hillary.
"They" [who vote for Trump] are perfectly capable of deciding what "their interests" are and only (rightly) resent being told they don't know. Exactly right, Erica.
We need to listen to people who vote differently from us to understand what their issues and opinions are.
Unfortunately, it's a rare, rare thing for me personally to have occasion to talk/listen to someone who is otherwise minded. I have to work hard at it. And then I have to be ready to respond in a way that encourages conversation; maybe, "That's really interested. I'd like to hear more." Alas, it's not what we do naturally.
OK, I first just swore "bullshit", but to put my objection in more precise terms: no, people typically _don't_ know their interests. _Especially_ "working-class" voters unaware of/not caring about/actively misled regarding the wider picture. On the merits, the "liberals" are right and you are wrong.
Now, it is still true that this is unpleasant messaging, but stop telling people that they are wrong when they happen to be correct.
All correct, but you're actually understating how much that "What's the Matter With Kansas" framing has harmed the public standing of liberals and progressives. The flagrant hypocrisy of it (values voting for we but not for thee) has been noticed by centrist as well as conservative voters for two decades now -- and it lights some of them _up_. That's how "liberal hypocrisy" became one of the basic parts of MAGA campaign rhetoric. If you ask those enraged voters for specifics on the hypocrisy charge this here is always one of their top three examples, and often #1.
Maybe thinking that people are voting against their own interests was/is unhelpful for Democrats who would have hoped for a different outcome. But thinking that way would not have affected the outcome of the election if it had been accompanied by evidence about how their policies had actually proved better as compared to the culture war stories and lies they were hearing from Trump and Fox News. What is past is prologue, unless it can teach.
Well written. Agreed. But many are also often think their voting for their material interests as well. Many Progressives benefit from the Systems’ configuration, some even directly by the very things those tax raises go to in a way that benefits them more than the tax loss. And many are mistake, maybe most scientists in most areas of the natural sciences are worse off then they otherwise would be absent the domestically centralization and capital "G" Globalization. That goes for the flip to, the “Whars the Matter with Kansas” arg, specific to Kansas, get dumb when you look at the variability in income within education cohorts (its higher than between them) and the distribution, and then look as (its changed some in recent years, maybe by a lot very recently) how capital Globalization benefited them for decades via advantaging American Ag and all the subsidies (eg bonanzas on overcharging for food “aid”, insurance schemes, etc), and then they also have people who are probably mistaken by in their reasoning. (and then yeah their are sizable shares of each “sides” voters who will fit your bill)
What a great article—thoughtful, convincing, and fair-minded.
Your point about the limits of self-interest reminds me of my favorite David Hume essay, “Of the First Principles of Government.” Hume argues that people don’t just support their leaders out of self-interest. A leader can only support my interests if they’re in power. But to get power, a leader has to win the “implicit submission” of the general population, not just me. So leaders must either appeal to the *general* interest or to people’s sense of morality (“opinion of right” and “opinion of property”).
It’s a beautifully simple argument. And it’s Hume, so it’s beautifully written, too.
https://davidhume.org/texts/empl1/fp
The thing about this phrase is that it is a true window into an ugly mentality. It presumes to tell grown men and women what their values should be, with the implication that they are too stupid to understand what their betters know to be the right thing, haughtily explained. The condescension is unbearable regardless of the policies in question, and they will not be more attractive just because those same betters change their messaging. The contempt is obvious even if unspoken. If those are good policies, then someone with a better civic attitude is going to have to be the one to persuade and implement them.
The other somewhat ugly assumption baked into this complaint is the notion that we should be voting in our own interest, rather than the national interest.
I would much rather be honest about my interests, and reason with my fellow citizens from a standpoint of honesty, then claim to be acting in "the national interest" which tends inevitably to be an imposition of my own values. As here.
It’s fascinating to watch liberal pundits drone on about the same nonsense that led to Trump in the first place.
Well written as always, Erica.
Thanks! Can you give some examples of who and what they're saying?
Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder come to mind.
Heather Cox Richardson still fear mongering about Trump being a Nazi dictator. The whole MSNBC lineup does that.
Trudeau and Carney are showing the RIGHT way to fight Trump. After doing the same old Democrat thing for years, shouting nonsense about "democracy", they suddenly got serious and started SERVING THEIR OWN PEOPLE in actions instead of words. Now the Canadian Conservatives are stuck without a counterargument because the people don't need an alternative to the RIGHT THING.
If Democrats had been serving the people like FDR instead of serving Wall Street, Trump wouldn't have gained any traction in 2016. If Obama had turned down TARP and ZIRP, and enacted Medicare For All instead of Romneycare, his successor would have been elected easily. And his successor would have been Bernie, not Hillary.
"They" [who vote for Trump] are perfectly capable of deciding what "their interests" are and only (rightly) resent being told they don't know. Exactly right, Erica.
We need to listen to people who vote differently from us to understand what their issues and opinions are.
Unfortunately, it's a rare, rare thing for me personally to have occasion to talk/listen to someone who is otherwise minded. I have to work hard at it. And then I have to be ready to respond in a way that encourages conversation; maybe, "That's really interested. I'd like to hear more." Alas, it's not what we do naturally.
OK, I first just swore "bullshit", but to put my objection in more precise terms: no, people typically _don't_ know their interests. _Especially_ "working-class" voters unaware of/not caring about/actively misled regarding the wider picture. On the merits, the "liberals" are right and you are wrong.
Now, it is still true that this is unpleasant messaging, but stop telling people that they are wrong when they happen to be correct.
All correct, but you're actually understating how much that "What's the Matter With Kansas" framing has harmed the public standing of liberals and progressives. The flagrant hypocrisy of it (values voting for we but not for thee) has been noticed by centrist as well as conservative voters for two decades now -- and it lights some of them _up_. That's how "liberal hypocrisy" became one of the basic parts of MAGA campaign rhetoric. If you ask those enraged voters for specifics on the hypocrisy charge this here is always one of their top three examples, and often #1.
Maybe thinking that people are voting against their own interests was/is unhelpful for Democrats who would have hoped for a different outcome. But thinking that way would not have affected the outcome of the election if it had been accompanied by evidence about how their policies had actually proved better as compared to the culture war stories and lies they were hearing from Trump and Fox News. What is past is prologue, unless it can teach.
They vote for Trump for nothing more than he is a strongman who will, by proxy, make them part of “the team”.
How’s that going for them? They don’t care because it is a cultural thing. Period.
Well written. Agreed. But many are also often think their voting for their material interests as well. Many Progressives benefit from the Systems’ configuration, some even directly by the very things those tax raises go to in a way that benefits them more than the tax loss. And many are mistake, maybe most scientists in most areas of the natural sciences are worse off then they otherwise would be absent the domestically centralization and capital "G" Globalization. That goes for the flip to, the “Whars the Matter with Kansas” arg, specific to Kansas, get dumb when you look at the variability in income within education cohorts (its higher than between them) and the distribution, and then look as (its changed some in recent years, maybe by a lot very recently) how capital Globalization benefited them for decades via advantaging American Ag and all the subsidies (eg bonanzas on overcharging for food “aid”, insurance schemes, etc), and then they also have people who are probably mistaken by in their reasoning. (and then yeah their are sizable shares of each “sides” voters who will fit your bill)
Look at any truth social post from this ass hole . No one’s interest is being served but him duuude😡😆😎🤪
It’s in no one’s interest to vote for a crazy man 👨😎😳😆
Agreed!