Propaganda. Lack of education. There’s a reason they want to defund public schools. They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. :)
Why people consistently vote against their own interests to benefit the rich?
Submitted 4 months ago by tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
Rookwood@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Tattorack@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I can use my brother as an example for that:
My younger brother is entirely sold on billionaire philanthropy. He watched interviews where people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos on talk shows and podcasts, places where people like this go to advertise themselves, and has been completely convinced that they’re innovative, smart people.
Smart people who, through just being so damn smart, managed to become billionaires.
aesthelete@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They’re idiots
zeppo@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They get manipulated about and distracted by certain issues. The people who want power know this and exploit topics such as guns, abortion, fear of crime, racism/nationalism, sexism, economic issues and taxes. Plenty of people vote republican because they have been convinced that Democrats will take their guns, allow in too many immigrants (with the implicit idea that immigrants are bad somehow), be worse on the economy, lower taxes, let criminals get off easy, reduce the influence of Christianity, and so forth.
There’s also the decades of propaganda about socialism and communism, and against social safety nets as well as government and anything run by the government vs a private entity. So basically, because they’re not very aware or well informed and all themselves to be convinced by propaganda.
tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
Becaus they want to see other people suffer
carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Stupidity, cult mentality, “my sports team” mentality, religion, and single issue voters.
Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
I think that it depends on the person. I’ve heard of enough people who voted for Donald because they like that he “says it like it is”, or “he’s a businessman”, or because they just want lower taxes. Some people are so exposed to rage-bait social media/news content and are always being told what to be afraid of and they vote emotionally based on that fear. My grandfather votes the way he does because he’s TERRIFIED of immigrants, even legal ones - because all he does is sit and watch fox news. I think most often, people are busy with their lives, paying their bills, taking care of their kids, etc. and don’t have a lot of energy left over for politics. People treat voting like it’s team sports. A ton of people voted for Donald because they thought tariffs were paid by the other country, not American businesses. I don’t exactly blame people, it’s a lot of information and life is probably a lot more relaxed for people that don’t follow it.
considine@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Tariffs can be paid by the export country, indirectly. They usually have to lower the price of the commodity to make it competitive under tariffs.
Under Fordist economics the domestic industrial boost would lead to increased wages and buying power.
Under neoliberalism the domestic industrial capitalists gain a larger market share and then don’t pay their workers more. Then they are faced with the problem of what to do with products that are unaffordable.
ICastFist@programming.dev 4 months ago
The majority of people vote with their gut and won’t look deep into what politician A is promising, so long as one of the promises is exactly the thing the person wants. For a considerable number of gamers, it’s dealing with woke culture. Trump is a fervent enemy of “the woke”, but he also promised hefty import tariffs on everything, so consoles can get really damn expensive. But hey, the woke sjw’s are getting owned!!
This piece on Aftermath touches an important point as well, that left leaning content often takes care to not spout random bullshit, while right leaning will just say whatever because haha engagement goes brrrrrrr.
Going off a tangent, the Brazilian right complains that “the poor vote with their bellies”, implying they’ll vote for whoever promises “free money” or “free meals”, usually in the form of govt programs. During election years, the right will try to claim they were the masterminds behind every sort of program meant to help poor people, such as Bolsa Familia, while loudly and constantly complaining about their existence and doing everything in their power to block money outside election years. It’s common to find people who depend(ed) on Bolsa Familia to survive that complain about “freeloaders” that “want to be fed by the government”. A good portion of right-wingers also believe that the govt pays a whole minimum wage to every person in jail, despite this bullshit being debunked several times already.
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Who is there to vote for otherwise? Two sides of the same coin. The rich try to keep politics about anything except wealth inequality. The rich keep the good candidates off your ballot long before it’s time to choose between tweedle Dee and tweedle dum.
jagged_circle@feddit.nl 4 months ago
Usually this happens when you dont have a democracy. Establish a system with rank choice voting and a few dozen candidates, and you’ll see votes closer signed with voter interests
radix@lemmy.world 4 months ago
One’s “own best interest” can take a lot of different forms. Especially when the number and variety of plausible candidates are finite. Your preferred candidate for a given office will rarely line up perfectly with your own values. There’s a compromise there.
If I vote for my own finances, it may come at the cost of my morals. It I vote for my own moral interest, it may cost me more. If I vote for my own power, it may cost someone else their freedoms. How heavily do I weight my own interests against those of a wider society? Political identities and philosophies are complicated, and can’t necessarily be reduced to a single binary choice that is “best” in every scenario.
Apathy@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Most are wanting an end to this current system so they’ll ‘play’ it out knowing albeit the struggle, Democracy has left the building and late stage capitalism is showing the disparity of the predators and preys of society
nutsack@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The rich are clever and very well coordinated
systemglitch@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Bexause you have a two party system where both sides are corrupt
lastunusedusername2@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Can you really not see the difference between the parties?
rimu@piefed.social 4 months ago
Part of the issue is the system of voting is set up so that there can only ever be two parties. Dividing the country up into chunks and then having one winner in each chunk creates a situation where voting third party is a wasted vote. When there are only two options it's pretty hard to vote for your interests.
In the 90s when New Zealand changed to MMP to led to a proliferation of new parties getting into parliament and the people involved were much much less often old white males. It changed the dynamic completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_New_Zealand
CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Any rational person can see the difference, doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Just because democrats are way better than republicans doesn’t mean they are GOOD. Both parties attract corrupt greedy powermongers. MAGA / GOP just gets the lion’s share.
oji@lemmy.world 4 months ago
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
If I’m struggling this much now then imagine how much harder it will be when I have to pay higher taxes
Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 months ago
Because it’s no longer about benefits or interests.
It’s about the “my side won, your side lost, get over it” mentality. It’s about the tribalism and making sure you keep your ire focused on your fellow man rather than looking up and seeing the source of your problems
And it’s not just the US. It’s fucking everywhere.
Snapz@lemmy.world 4 months ago
In the US, is this actually the moment past the point of no return? Would you ever allow yourself to accept that truth if so, or will you need to see actually bodies in the streets before you believe it’s over?
FuryMaker@lemmy.world 4 months ago
They believe it will benefit them one day.
Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
TL;DR: I blame FPTP.
Hm, I’d argue that this is a byproduct of the spoiler effect — I think it’s due to strategic voting. I think that it’s likely not due to people consciously voting against their own interests to benefit the rich (assuming that they indeed do this — ie that voting to benefit the rich is against their interests), but instead that the entities that support these sorts of beliefs, also tend to align with other beliefs that are more important to the voters, and “benefiting the rich”, while possibly perceived negatively, is a sacrifice that the voters are willing to make.
scarabic@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Because everyone thinks of themselves as a potential rich person. Or in other words: people think that being rich is the ideal state, so let’s align everything around that.
If we truly put a yoke on the rich and contained them, we would also be reining in the smallfolks dreams.
By contrast, rich people don’t sit around dreaming about being smallfolk and planning aspirationally for the day that will happen.
Kcap@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It all boils down to education
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 months ago
What would be an example of this? It’s not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits “the rich” then also means it’s against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn’t mean I must lose something in exchange.
Jackthelad@lemmy.world 4 months ago
“You don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer”.
NewDark@lemmings.world 4 months ago
Manufactured consent
vortexal@sopuli.xyz 4 months ago
Kind of an indirect answer, but I’ve heard people state that they vote the way they do because they believe that there needs to be a balance between “good and bad”. Obviously, this is complete bullshit. Even if there should be a “balance”, we already have enough problems as is, we don’t need the government making it worse.
Fighter_Moo@discuss.online 4 months ago
Anger, Self-Loathing, and misguided Hate
Anger is like a fire. They’re a useful yet dangerous tool that burns and breaks stuff. When handled correctly, fire can shine light in the dark, give warmth in the cold, cook meals for the hungry, or protect you from wolves. In other words, a well controlled Anger is good at getting work done.
Not everyone has learned how to manage their Anger properly. Some let their Anger go too dim, making it hard to do stuff. Some redirect their Anger at themselves, out of fear of hurting others or believing they deserve it. Some let their Anger spread without a care of who it hurts, as long as it gets the job done. Some learn to concentrate their Anger into a beam of Hate, but don’t know who or what to aim the beam at.
Going back to the question “why do people vote against their own interests?” It is Self-Loathing. It is people who are so used to having a piece of themselves set on fire by others that they start setting themselves on fire of their own volition. It is misguided Hate. It is people who know there’s a problem and want to fix it, but have been misled about the source of the problems by people who are interested in not getting targeted by Hate.
“Why do they vote to benefit the rich?” We don’t have a choice there when either vote would have benefited the rich and powerful anyway. Just choosing between different types of benefits. Money and Power have a tendency to rise upwards, so any aid we give to those struggling at the bottom will end up benefiting those at the top anyway. But I hear ya, giving benefits to the poor and letting it rise away still beats just giving it to the rich and hoping it’ll trickle down someday.
PugJesus@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Because civic education is lowly valued.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
The incredibly recent Sri Lankan election enters the chat… and feels sad at being ignored.
tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m ignorant about that, care to elaborate?
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Sri Lankans (of all varieties - complicated history) have elected a left leaning coalition. It’s very unusual the majority of every “section” of Sri Lanka to throw their support behind the same candidate / party (again - historical reasons.)
Here’s a BBC link. It appears to be reasonably factual as I understand it and is a good synopsis:
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Do we actually vote to benefit the rich?
Many vote for leaders that openly cater to the rich, but I don’t know that we actually consciously vote to deliberately help the rich.
Those elected people are the ones telling everyone that the rich are the job creators. They used to feed us the farce that trickle-down was viable, they don’t even bother with the lie anymore. The rich are just squatters on wealth. They get that wealth by consolidating businesses, hoarding assets like real estate, creating artificial scarcity, enshittifying everything, and squeezing labor for more productivity while expending massive effort to minimize overall compensation.
And they own the media. All of it. Even the “liberal” media is mealy at best about taxing wealth or anything critical of the uber-wealthy, anything right of center is openly against tax, particularly of anyone with wealth.
All that aside, the real crux of the issue is identity politics. Being a sycophant of the rich is no longer any different than being a evangelical supply-side Jesus CINO, pro-gun, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-environmental regs, blah blah and all the rest of the mulish conservative BS.
They don’t actually care if we cater to the rich. They care that their team says we should bend over and give the rich everything. Just like their team says school shootings are an acceptable price for having your own personal arsenal, or spreading a potentially deadly disease is better than being inconvenienced by closed restaurants.
Obstinate tribalism has gleefully supplanted critical thought.