Do people vote their “economic interests?” And what does the phrase even mean?
For a certain kind of elite East Coast journalist, “economic interests” means that people should be voting for (and grateful for, damn it!) the insignificant baubles that Democrats promised them. Or that the rich white people living in cities should be voting for Republicans. Because, hey, don’t Republicans stand for rich, white people?
What if the problem is that all of the writer’s assumptions are wrong? That seems to be the case with this ridiculous piece:
Working-class Americans who voted for Donald J. Trump continue to approve of him as president, even though he supported a health care bill that would disproportionately hurt them.
Highly educated professionals tend to lean Democratic, even though Republican tax policies would probably leave more money in their pockets.
Why do people vote against their economic interests?
The answer, experts say, is partisanship. Party affiliation has become an all-encompassing identity that outweighs the details of specific policies.
So are people now brainless partisans? No, not really. The 2016 election should have taught us a lot about voters who lack strong partisan instincts. But it seems no one learned anything.
Americans don’t vote based on the relatively insignificant baubles that one party or the other might promise to give them if they control the machinery of government. Not even the more significant baubles, if we look at old-age entitlements. They vote based on their values. This applies to wealthy liberals the same way it does to working-class conservatives. America has been blessed with a total lack of class consciousness all around, and that’s a good thing. Its citizens base their votes on what they believe to be right and wrong.
Is this really so hard for New York Times bloggers to understand?
