Non-voters are much more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
This is largely due to demography: rich people vote much more than poor people, and old people more than young people. But even among people of the same age and income, those who lean Republican are more likely to vote. There are various theories as to why this is so. The one that resonates with me is that people lean Democratic because they want things to change in some dramatic way -- this would be especially true of those who pay little attention to politics -- but no matter who wins the election, things never change in the way that they want. So they say voting makes no difference.
It seems to me that if the Congress actually matched the ideological profile of the nation as a whole, as opposed to the voting part, the mandate would be there for a bunch of big changes: single payer health care, for example. But since poor people don't think their votes make any difference, they don't bother to vote, and the things that would help them don't happen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"The one that resonates with me is that people lean Democratic because they want things to change in some dramatic way -- this would be especially true of those who pay little attention to politics -- but no matter who wins the election, things never change in the way that they want. So they say voting makes no difference."
The current administration is pretty strong evidence of the fact that things don't change. I remember the mood of much of the nation at first, so proud at electing their first African American president, so hopeful for impactful change as a result. But when the hype died down and reality set in, people were stunned to realize almost nothing had changed - the Obama administration has essentially kept the status quo of the Bush administration. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
People want change, but neither side is currently offering it - or more accurately, one side is actively resisting change, while the other is promising change and then deciding not to deliver. The Democratic party is great at talking making promises about change, but they don't bother keeping any of them once they get their people in office. It's just the same old song and dance, the same old behind-the-scenes dirty manipulation and pandering to moneyed interest groups.
Sure, they aren't the Republican Party - plagued by untold numbers of religious nutjobs, racists, misogynists, xenophobes, militant imperialists, and good old fashioned robber barons - but all that means is they're the lesser of two evils. It's almost worse because of that - at least the Republican party has all those crippling flaws to justify its lack of positive change. But the Democrats are don't really have an excuse for messing things up this badly. Unlike Bush Junior, Obama is a demonstrably intelligent man who can string more than two words together successfully - which means he's either a liar or he's a pushover (or quite likely both, given his political track record prior to election).
But as the French saying goes, "Rogues are preferable to imbeciles because sometimes they take a rest". Better the liar who makes empty promises of positive change than a man of his word who champions abominable values ...but not much better.
The Republicans succeed as much as they do because as crazy as many of them are, their constituents are equally nuts, and therefor support them wholeheartedly. And the Democrats fail as badly as they do, because as much as their consituency wants what the Democrats promise, they know those promises are ultimately empty, and they have no faith in the party as anything other than the lesser of two evils.
As you know, I don't think attitudes toward change as such are what really defines the difference between conservatives and liberals. The fact is that, at present, conservative voters are much more motivated by their agendas--which, in many cases, involve truly radical changes--than liberals are. I say this as a liberal. The current conservative movement, divided as it is, has been building for a very long time, as Rick Perlstein has chronicled. Conservatives had a fanatical Goldwater to build their core, a divisive Nixon to feed their anger, and a charismatic Reagan to build their majority. Perhaps the thing that could really start such a process for liberals would be a few years of real, movement conservative dominance.
Post a Comment