2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009

Analysis

Preface

This post is mainly about an article written by Jonathan Haidt, but adding two things:

• Focus on the two paragraphs beginning with "A Durkheimian ethos...", implying that they are of particular interest
• The parting "You might even conclude, as I suspect Haidt does, that Republican voters tend to be more nuanced and sophisticated than Democratic voters."

If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot.

Here is the analysis of the Haidt piece; it's a logical and scientific mess.

Barone's interpretation of it:

You might even conclude, as I suspect Haidt does, that Republican voters tend to be more nuanced and sophisticated than Democratic voters.

....yyyyeahhh, right.

What Haidt has shown is that Republican voters will buy anything if it's packaged right, and that he is willing to sacrifice the integrity of his own research (by front-loading his starting premises) to make his results appealing to them. He argues strenuously for the right of conservatives to choose one's medicine based on what color it is, and that it is the doctor's fault for not making the right medicine the right color because chromatic consistency is necessary for their group identity and all their cute little institutions will fall apart if they start looking inside things to see what they are made of instead of just reading the name on the cereal box. If it's called "Sugar-Coated American Family Jesus Puffs", it can't be bad, right?

Keeping the kids away from the heavy machinery is still the ticket here, I think.

Opinions

Midian

As a liberty-minded individual, I vote Republican only because I cannot come around to the Democrat mindset.

• The premise that an unborn child's life is worth less than a convicted murderer; murder is murder, all life is sacrosanct, I am against capital punishment AND free (gov. funded) abortion, but if I had to choose, as I do in politics, my choice is clear, I side with the innocent.
• That a criminal should have more rights than a true victim. For those who have shown they hold no regard for others, that they do not value life itself, I have no pity. Over 60% of violent offenses are by repeat offenders (DOJ). Incarcerate them and keep them incarcerated, you stop over 60% of violent crimes. 60%!
• The government knows better how to spend the money I earned by the sweat of my brow than I do. I give to the charities that I choose to promote. I don't want the government subsidizing/promoting things I find detrimental to society as a whole, and if they have less of my money, they can't spend it.
• That weapons of self defense should be kept out of the hands of the only people who are capable of defending themselves. The police are not required to protect you (Supreme Court: Castle Rock v. Gonzales) and even if they are so inclined, they cannot act until a crime has already been committed. Only you can keep yourself safe from harm. The more gun control laws we pass, the easier it becomes to obtain firearms illegally. Why should we be unarmed in the face of an armed aggressor?
• Free enterprise in a competitive society, while far from perfect, is far superior than government run industry. The health care industry, as profit-driven and heartless as it is, spends $1 of every 3 it earns on health care for sick people. The government run medicare spends $1 of every 50 it earns on health care for sick people. (Ideally a non-profit co-op health insurance company would be best, but that's another topic altogether).

I have similar issues with the Republicans (legalize marijuana already), however, when weighing one against the other, these are more important to me than those. Without the 2nd amendment, who will stand up for the others? "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

Woozle responds

• [M] "The premise that an unborn child's life is worth less than a convicted murderer..."
  • Framing it as a matter of "worth" is oversimplifying the issue. First off, a convicted murderer may in fact be innocent (and states with a death penalty tend to have a higher error rate, from what I can tell). Second, is it really in a child's best interests to be born to parents who don't want a child, and who may be inadequately prepared to take care of it? More generally, "pro-life" people seem to be under the illusion that it is always better to be alive than not to be, but this is not always the case, and we can only use our best judgment as to when life is preferable and when it is not.
• [M] "That a criminal should have more rights than a true victim."
  • That is certainly not a liberal premise, and seems much closer to views expressed by the Republicans. (If you're going to turn around and define "victims" as "unborn children" and "criminals" as "abortion doctors", then (a) I refer you to my previous comment, and (b) you can't go calling someone a criminal when they aren't doing anything illegal.)
• [M] "The government knows better how to spend the money I earned by the sweat of my brow than I do."
  • So you, voluntarily, will send money to help ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? How many others will join you? Where do we send the money to?
• [M] "That weapons of self defense should be kept out of the hands of the only people who are capable of defending themselves."
  • Liberals are not against gun ownership; we just want to minimize the number of gun owners who are criminals, crazy, unstable, or otherwise should be kept away from heavy machinery. Would you disagree with this? If you disagree with existing gun control laws and proposals, how do you propose keeping guns out of the hands of such people?
• [M] "The more gun control laws we pass, the easier it becomes to obtain firearms illegally."
  • Is this true? Sources, please.
• [M] "The health care industry, as profit-driven and heartless as it is, spends $1 of every 3 it earns on health care for sick people. The government run medicare spends $1 of every 50 it earns on health care for sick people."
  • This is completely opposite the figures I have heard, which were something like 30% of private healthcare premiums go towards administrative overhead, while only 2% of government healthcare expenditures go towards overhead. Sources, please?

Yes, the government should fear -- or at least be answerable and accountable to -- the people. We seem to be losing that. (...with help from Republican arguments against "populism", thanks. The Republicans are not your friends on this issue.)