Brian's Song or why do people vote against their own interests?
Political scientist Dr David Runciman, in comments made to the BBC, looks at why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters:
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence. Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.





Comments (21)
Nail on the head. Thank you Mr. Smith
Comment #1 Posted by: Brad Hudson | February 1, 2010 08:25 PM
The federal government also gives us the Post Office (broke), Amtrak (broke), Medicare (insolvent), Social Security (insolvent), and the EPA (WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU).
Listen up, wing nuts - it isn't going to happen. There is too much reliable history.
Comment #2 Posted by: The Postman | February 2, 2010 09:23 AM
This "Postman" post proves the point of the article. These angry rightwing-wing nuts will lie about anything...
And they will try to hide the fact that it was eight years of Republican "aristocratic" rule that took this country down into financial chaos.
Ignorance is profound and their angry rants are just a cover for their own failures.
Comment #3 Posted by: Dharma | February 2, 2010 11:07 AM
Come on, the whole point of politics is to convince people to vote against their self-interest. And with healthcare, in a time of bailouts, bank failures, 10% unemployment, sinking dollar, and crazy State and Fed deficit spending with no end in sight, another goverment program doesn't sound like a good idea. The fact that it is godless is beside the point.;-)
Here's a great example of what people are "afraid of!" with socialized medecine. For those too entrenched in their position to click the link, here is the first couple of paragraphs in this article from Canada's National Post
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
N.L. Premier Williams set to have heart surgery in U.S.
Kenyon Wallace, National Post
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States.
Deputy premier Kathy Dunderdale confirmed the treatment at a news conference Tuesday, but would not reveal the location of the operation or how it would be paid for.
"He has gone to a renowned expert in the procedure that he needs to have done," said Ms. Dunderdale, who will become acting premier while Mr. Williams is away for three to 12 weeks.
"In consultation with his own doctors, he's decided to go that route."
Mr. Williams' decision to leave Canada for the surgery has raised eyebrows over his apparent shunning of Canada's health-care system.
"It was never an option offered to him to have this procedure done in this province," said Ms. Dunderdale, refusing to answer whether the procedure could be done elsewhere in Canada.
Comment #4 Posted by: Johnny Chingas | February 2, 2010 03:36 PM
Chingas! You just proved the author correct!
Will you ever wake up?
Comment #5 Posted by: Dharma | February 2, 2010 03:49 PM
I've been on Blue Cross, now Anthem Blue Cross for 40+ yrs. I've had excellent coverage and help with them, and the price of the coverage is reasonable-$69/month. Their reps do everything they can to straighten things out. My father did not believe in health insurance and paid for everything out of his own pocket- my mother's open heart surgery+, all the convalescent home care. It was grim watching what he went through in his 60s. He was a Lt. Col. in the Army Reserve so got to die by government policies in a veteran's hospital. They even threw in his burial at a VA cemetery.
Comment #6 Posted by: Cara | February 2, 2010 04:59 PM
Cara- how old are you?
what kind of coverage do you get for $69/month?
Are you part of some very unusual group plan?
I am the healthiest 62 year old person you will ever meet.
Have no doctor/drug nor dentist coverage with Blue Cross.
$5000 deductible and I pay almost $250/month for an individual major medical policy which i have used once in 20 years.
It is the one bill i resent paying, but so be it.
What irks me is having my rates jacked around, up and down over the last 10-15 years.
Comment #7 Posted by: mk | February 2, 2010 11:02 PM
I truly believe that the people that are against health care reform, as proposed by the current administration are afraid of bigger government. Most people will tell you that it does need to be fixed, but not in the socialistic model that is being proposed.We are losing sight of the big picture of to many individuals not paying there way in this system, and insurance companies making large profits dictating what and how they will pay.Yes, I do include the illegal aliens in this statement and note I mean large profits, not large profit margins.If the government could show us a well run, non corrupt, and bi-partisan program on anything we might take them up on health care reform. As it is right now the government has not shown to the people they can run any programs that do not have major problems.Do not be so arrogant to think the populace is not informed. We know enough
Comment #8 Posted by: andy | February 3, 2010 08:47 AM
Great article Howard! I need to go back and read it through more slowly to savor its wisdom. Thomas Frank is one of my favorites. I love the quote,
Looks like you may even have picked up some right-wing, paid trolls with this one. There's a few people weighing in here who I've never seen on the Post before. Ant their rhetoric is a study in manipulation and misdirection of the issue to hot button topics like illegal immigration, etc. The kind of stuff you see from trolls paid by think tanks funded by the likes of the Koch brothers(pronounced Coke apparently so it doesn't sound Jewish) and Richard Mellon Scaife. They like to use short, easy to read names. Congratulations on attracting them. There are also some perennial conservatives like Johnny Chingas and The Postman who sounds suspiciously like Brian himself.
On a tangential note, the President has been kicking ass and taking names lately. He's still not as progressive a I'd like, but he's definitely making the right noises. In fact, the degree to which he's "not progressive" enough for me may actually be a matter of tactics on his part as well a deeper understanding of the whole political paradigm. Certainly his dismantling of the Republican Caucus for like and hour and a half the other day was inspiring. If you haven't seen it I urge you to go online and look for it, but you won't find it on Roger Ailes' Faux News. Apparently the whole thing scared FOX so bad that they actually dropped the feed to allow their bubble headed pundits to try to do damage control.
The kind of fact based, reality based politics that we saw as the President systematically annihilated all of the questions put to him by the 140 member House Republican Caucus is exactly what the media needs to be showing the public. It would go a long way toward removing the vail of anger and misinformation afflicting so many in the astroturf Tea Party set. Fox switching it off is tantamount to a violation of their FCC license to broadcast in the public interest. Of course, Faux has been in violation of the "public interest" for some time.
Meanwhile we may want to have a look at this pollfrom research 2000 of self identified Republicans. Apparently anywhere from 25-35% of Republicans are totally immune to reality. I suspect this fact provides the primary melody to "Brian's Song". Oh, and guess where they get their news.
Comment #9 Posted by: spk | February 3, 2010 12:42 PM
No comments on the story about the Canada Premier of Newfoundland who is leaving his "free" healthcare system to come to the U.S. where he can pay to have an operation his own system denied him. There really is nothing to say about it, is there?
Interesting theories about paid trolls to come on OjaiPost.com. LOL~! How many people read this? 20? 100? I don't think I have changed anybody's mind in the few times I've posted here, maybe the pros will have better luck!;-) Cheers.
Comment #10 Posted by: Johnny Chingas | February 3, 2010 06:02 PM
Johnny be good...
You keep proving this thesis over and over again.
Thank you!
Comment #11 Posted by: Dharma | February 3, 2010 06:09 PM
The few poll questions I saw I agreed with but I don't consider myself a republican, I refer to myself as a conservative. I'm thinking about registering as a independent. Many of these republicans have no spending control and are only out for bringing home the pork, just like the democrats. I believe in limited government, and strict adherance to the constitution, along with states rights.
What a joke that question and answer thing was, They get to ask a question but then Barack gets to go on and on and the questioner is not allowed any follow up. Some of his responses didn't even address the question!
Obama doesn't seem to know (or care) what he's doing. He certainly doesn't understand what's required to create a positive business environment. I was pleased with his gesture for nuclear power but he will most likely let the greenie lawyers tie things up to accomplish his true agenda. The progressives must be very pleased with the down turn of the country and the economy in that it's in line with their general philosophy of a more primitive society, nevermind how many working people suffer or are unable to send their kids to collage. If fact even having kids just is a bigger carbon footprint to them. California is the perfect example of where the country is going, but that's what they want.
Comment #12 Posted by: BC | February 4, 2010 12:51 AM
Brian - it's completely erroneous statements like the above which make it impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with you. You have absolutely no understanding of the person on the other side of the table.
Progressives are business leaders, blue-collar workers, entrepreneurs, parents, students, family and friends. They too want to build a thriving business, support their family, send their kids to a good school (or to do a collage with them).
Progressives are homeowners and have investments, and 401K's and IRA's. To demonize 50% or more of the country, and assume that a "downturn" is "pleasing" to progressives is quite frankly bizarre. Where would you get the idea that the progressives' "general philosophy" is to have a more "primitive society"?
You may be a self-identified conservative, but your talking points come straight from Rush, Bill and Glenn.
Comment #13 Posted by: Tyler | February 4, 2010 08:44 AM
It's my understanding that progressives are against oil products, against dams (for collecting water), against mass production of food, against pesticide use, against individual responsibility for basic social needs, and against individual freedom.
Comment #14 Posted by: BC | February 4, 2010 03:54 PM
you forgot to say progressives are against doing laundry, driving the speed limit and flossing.
Comment #15 Posted by: LS | February 4, 2010 04:09 PM
Brian -
If by "against", you mean "are looking for alternative, sustainable solutions to", you might be getting closer.
Your statement that the progressives' "general philosophy" is to have a more "primitive society" is really ignorant and quite frankly, insulting.
And regarding "individual freedom"? The Republicans are pro torture, pro warrantless wiretapping and anti gay marriage.
Comment #16 Posted by: Tyler | February 4, 2010 05:48 PM
Before agriculture, people lived according to the abundance of wild game and edible plants. This was a primitive way of life, which led to a nomadic, “primitive society”. When food was plentiful times were good, when they were not, times were bad.
The early agrarians found that it was easier to kill game if they were trapped it in a natural enclosure and animal husbandry was born. Likewise, early humans developed corresponding techniques to grow and harvest plants and avoid the feast and famine that had characterized our ancestors "primitive" life.
In our continuing desire to avoid the "feast and famine" scenario, humans are continually seeking ways to conserve and manage our resources. In this context, it of course makes sense to seek out new possibilities to find ways to stretch of the availability of existing resources and eventually find more sustainable replacements. Since the beginning of Agriculture it has been in our nature to find these fixes to avoid the drawbacks, primarily death, of the old way of "doing business".
Capitalism, in its current form, relies on scarcity to create markets. When a commodity is abundant, prices are low, when they are scarce, prices go up. Importantly, it is not the actual physical quantity on hand that is taken into account, but the perception of abundance (or its lack thereof) that truly creates the market and sets the price.
This market system is also at play in other areas - fear and security immediately springs to mind. The perceived increase in the level of fear creates a market for increased security.
As we continually strive to smooth out the "feast or famine" curve in all aspects of our lives, as is our want post the discovery of agriculture, capitalism in its current “profits first” form is found lacking. A shift of focus onto the abundance of resources, security, skills etc., and how to make the best use of, and conserve reserves, has led to the birth of social capitalism and social entrepreneurs.
These are members of our community that our committed to finding solutions that work for community stakeholders and not just shareholders. These solutions take physical (new forms of capturing and delivering energy) well as conceptual form (new economic and educational models) and could be described as "progressive."
Early corporations behaved progressively in this way, especially when corporation charters required that they “serve the common good”.
We face many challenges:
-peak oil production in the face of escalating demand,
-sustainable and safe energy production and delivery
-the need for a clean sustainable water supply,
-feeding a growing population while preserving our topsoil and watersheds,
-conveying the concept that healthcare costs don’t begin at the hospital door, but in our environment, our misuse of resources, and a sedentary lifestyle at home and in the office,
-instilling in our fellow citizens a collective feeling of solidarity, not a dependence upon charity
-truly understanding that we are social creatures and yearn for social inclusion,
(consider our system of punishments – it starts with a time out/go sit in the corner and progresses to incarceration, solitary confinement and ultimately to exile. In all cases the individual has been excluded from the group.
-availing of the unique talents of all members of our community to face these challenges without fear
Nous sommes tous de lopins et d une texture si informe et diverse, que chaque pièce, chaque moment fait son jeu. Et se trouve autant de différence de nous a nous mêmes que de nous a autruy. - Michel de Montaigne
Which roughly translates to:
We each have within ourselves so much diversity and texture, so many aspects, each with its own role to play, that the differences within ourselves are greater than those between us and others.
Comment #17 Posted by: Wayne Thompson | February 5, 2010 11:45 AM
Thank you, Wayne!
Comment #18 Posted by: Suza | February 5, 2010 07:47 PM
No THANK YOU Suxa!!
Comment #19 Posted by: Wayne | February 6, 2010 10:33 AM
I spy an imposter!
The real Wayne would never say anything mean-spirited.
Comment #20 Posted by: Xena | February 6, 2010 12:12 PM
Thanks xena!
Comment #21 Posted by: Xena Boots | February 7, 2010 10:46 AM