I'm beginning to get the impression that the claim "people vote against their own interests" is always levied against people who vote differently than the claimant. He voted differently than me, therefor he voted against his own interests. I could easily claim the same of you, for example. So I think it's more of a condescending accusation rather than useful comment. — NOS4A2

It's not intended to be condescending. I'm exploring the factors that account for irrational choices. They're made all the time. Conservative minded people do not have a monopoly on it, nor did I claim that. And it's not simply "you don't agree with me, therefore you're irrational."

People make irrational choices all the time, for many reasons. If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational. There's always a chance you're wrong, of course. Mistakes happen, etc.

I agree.

It may be a more productive discussion if you would just lay out the problematic beliefs that many Americans have in a way that will compel those capable of looking at things anew, to do so. There are a wealth of common misconceptions and (mis)understandings that a very large swathe of everyday working class Americans and small business owners alike maintain and/or believe to be the case.

Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton. — Xtrix

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.

Sounds like you're arguing that electing Donald Trump was a rational choice. The rational choice was Clinton.
— Xtrix

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case. — creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?

People make irrational choices all the time, for many reasons. If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational. There's always a chance you're wrong, of course. Mistakes happen, etc.

What if the conservative's goal is "preserve traditional marriage" or "have more money in my pocket by paying less taxes." How are their decisions irrational?

Depends why you want lower taxes.

Having money is absolutely an end in itself. Money can provide security and freedom. Any working adult should be able to recognize this.

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
— creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case? — Xtrix

No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. If I may I'd like to further elaborate, since it seems needed...

What counts as the rational choice is entirely dependent upon the belief system of the agent doing the choosing. When one is rational, one is consistent, one is 'logical; and in being so one makes decisions based upon their own belief about the way things are.

All individuals will make decisions about which of two choices is best based their pre-existing belief system(world-view). Rational ones will choose what makes the most sense according to what they already believe, and irrational ones will choose what does not make the most sense according to they already believe.

What counts as a rational decision is all about forming, having, and/or holding beliefs that are consistent or amenable with and/or to one another(coherency). It's not about making decisions based upon true belief.

I don't really follow you here. Are you arguing, therefore, that either choice was rational if the person making the choice believed it to be?
seconds ago — Xtrix

Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works.

Being rational is all about being consistent in speech and behaviour and avoiding self-contradiction. Perhaps the following will help make my point clear...

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump.

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Clinton was not as important as not allowing someone like Trump to hold the highly esteemed office of the presidency of The United States of America, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Clinton.

100k USD income, a decent pension scheme, 8000 USD in savings — Benkei

How is your hypothetical income so high and savings so low? What are you hypothetically blowing all your hypothetical money on?

If someone believed that the government was corrupted by monetary influences and that Clinton is, was, and has been one of the ones reaping tremendous monetary personal benefit from those practices, at the expense of themselves, and that such people need to be removed nearly all costs, in addition to also believing that Donald Trump was not and would not become one of those people, then the rational choice for them is, was, and will be Trump.

Funny question for someone who lives in Ojai.

Who nevertheless has much lower income yet much much higher savings, hence the question, presuming this hypothetical person lives somewhere less overpriced than my hometown.

errr... I'm not American so I've got excellent social security but I do pay about 52% taxes after deductibles. I wouldn't know what a realistic upper middle class US family income would look like.

Median household income is around 50k. 100k is around the mean. Personal incomes are about half those household figures since the average household is about two people.

So $100k is definitely well above the usual kind of average (about twice the median). My point though is that only $8k in savings is tiny for that kind of income. I had saved that much after about five years of making leas than a quarter of that income, and now have several times that after about seven years (since I last went flat broke) of making around half of that. And I live in a very expensive area, although I live way below market rates for that area.

Well, let's see. Taking my disposable income, so after taxes, social security and pension contributions it looks like this:

Mortgage makes up about 33%.
Upkeep House 2.5%
Gas, water, light, phones is another 5%,
all insurances, including health insurance 5%
Car and petrol 4%
Daycare kids 3%
4 Holidays a year 17-20%
Food 10%
Clothing and birthday gifts 10%

We also just build an extension to the house and bought a lot of furniture,so the buffer is lower than I'd have it normally.

Probably the main difference is that I don't need to save for my pension from my disposable income. So I really only need savings to replace stuff if it breaks.

If you pay private insurance, you're paying more than you would with taxes with less coverage. You can get covered for everything I mentioned and more for less $$$ overall when you choose a socialized system.

Actually, America has a much poorer healthcare system than other countries with socialized healthcare systems. We rank 55th globally for maternal health outcomes.... Behind Russia! Our sworn mortal enemy! (Jk) — Artemis

There's a difference between the quality of healthcare available and the number of people that can afford it. If people don't take out insurance and can't afford healthcare out of pocket then that's not my problem. That the majority of americans make stupid choices by not getting insurance, or waiting with it until they have a pre-existing condition, doesn't mean I should pay for those bad decisions; your statistics are therefore meaningless. I might pay more for my insurance but I have access to the best healthcare the world has to offer.

America likes to pretend it and its basically unfettered capitalism with almost zero social safety net are the holy grail for innovation, but in reality, we're really scrambling to stay in the world leadership for that.

The top two are Switzerland and Sweden, which both have heavily socialist democratic governments.

That really depends on what metric. Most high tech? USA. Most patents filed? USA.

errr... I'm not American so I've got excellent social security but I do pay about 52% taxes after deductibles. I wouldn't know what a realistic upper middle class US family income would look like.

According to what I've found upper middle class income for a family is between 100k-350k, but we're also paying much, much less in taxes then you are. I think for your income tax bracket on a federal basis you'd be paying 24% and some states have no income tax. I only pull around 50k from my job but I wouldn't be surprised if our after-tax take home pay was similar (I take home around $4k/month) but I pay very little in taxes when April rolls around.

people don't take out insurance and can't afford healthcare out of pocket then that's not my problem. That the majority of americans make stupid choices by not getting insurance, or waiting with it until they have a pre-existing condition, doesn't mean I should pay for those bad decisions; — Benkei

You (the American Benkei) are benefitting from the social safety net. All American hospitals are dependent on Medicare funding. Your local hospital likely wouldnt be there if not for Medicare.

Contemporary American healthcare came into existence after WW2, heavily funded publicly and privately. What's happened is that the private funding has shrunk as America de-industrialized and companies offer less in terms of benefits.

Though 91 percent of Americans have health insurance, that reduction in benefits means we're all more dependent on the federal government to secure our healthcare infrastructure.

Bizarre the way Americans talk about Sanders. He's a middle-of-the-road Social Democrat advocating for stuff that most of the developed world takes for granted. That's about it. The rest is figments of diseased political imaginations. — Baden

The question isn't so much where he falls on the political spectrum when compared to much of Europe. It's where he falls on the spectrum in the US and how far away he is from the center in the US. He is quite far in the sense that America is a very conservative country in the scheme of things with relatively minor variations in political ideologies.

All of this is to concede much of what many say of America, which is that there has always been minimal choice among candidates. Assuming that true, it isn't bizarre at all that some would find larger variations from the center than expected to be a radical departure, and one would expect those trying to win an election to point out that their opponent is a radical. It's the theory of relativity I guess. A radical is determined by where you stand.

errr... I'm not American so I've got excellent social security but I do pay about 52% taxes after deductibles. I wouldn't know what a realistic upper middle class US family income would look like. — Benkei

I think I pay around 25% to 30%. It's hard to know after state, federal, local, and sales tax and it's so complicated. I pay a high school grad at a strip mall place to do my tax returns. He tries different numbers in the program until we get it like we like. My charitable deductions vary depending upon what I say my old junk was worth that I took down to the Goodwill. Some years I'm quite the philanthropist according to my tax returns.

Speaking of charity, I give I think $10 a month to a philosophy forum, or maybe it's $5. I don't really remember. When you're big money like me, you don't have time to watch every penny.

What if the conservative's goal is "preserve traditional marriage" or "have more money in my pocket by paying less taxes." How are their decisions irrational? — BitconnectCarlos

What decisions?

It's useless to talk about things like this in too general terms. I'm not advocating for an algorithm or a rule that will work in any given situation, which is why I try using specific examples. So regarding what I was saying earlier, if "preserve traditional marriage" is a goal of theirs, fine. We can argue about why they have this goal, as I want to do and in which there's interesting research about, but what's more important is:

1) The manufactured irrationality of their hierarchy. Meaning sacrificing all other values, which are in themselves (or collectively) of greater importance and greater benefit, for one value -- like transgender bathroom rights or traditional marriage or anything like that -- because you "feel" like it, is not only a mistake but an irrational choice. (To argue the 9/11 hijackers were acting irrationally, despite them clearly placing ultimate importance on and acting on one particular goal, isn't improper.)

2) The fact that even their choices made for their stated goals often have the opposite effect. By this I mean: polling will indicate that healthcare is a top concern, that people are aware that medicare expansion would directly improve their healthcare, yet they vote for a candidate who does not want to expand medicare because he promises less gun restriction, strict immigration laws, and perserving traditional marriage. That's still irrational. Most of the time, however, it's simply because someone has an "R" or a "D" next to their names.

To discuss Democrats -- they act irrationally too, when they're given a choice of two candidates and opt for one of them based solely on "electability."

Irrationality abounds.

What counts as "the rational choice" is always and forever more determined solely and exclusively by virtue of what the individual already believes to be the case.
— creativesoul

The rational choice is whatever the person believes to be the case?
— Xtrix

No, the rational choice is not merely whatever the person believes to be the case. The rational choice is whatever choice follows from those beliefs. — creativesoul

A choice that follows from "those beliefs" is a rational choice. Any beliefs?

It's not about making decisions based upon true belief. — creativesoul

I think this does have something to do with rationality, yes, although I'm not sure about "true belief." If decisions are made in pursuit of some goal because you have determined, based on available evidence and information, that this is the best way of achieving your goal, then that's rational -- in my view.

It could turn out that you've made a blunder, that your premises were false, that you overlooked something, etc. -- in which case the question becomes whether that was avoidable or not, about effort, about intention, etc. Or that there simply wasn't enough information. I would still count the choice as a rational one, because at the time it was.

If a decision was determined to be the best -- or even "believed" to be the correct one given your goal -- but was based simply on things like intuition, gut feeling, emotion, whim, habit, reaction, reflex, etc. -- it's irrational. That's not using reason to make decisions, it's using other factors. I assume you agree with this?


_________
As a digression, I want to be clear about one thing: I'm not some kind of Ayn Rand-esque "rationalist." I think we use what's called reason and logic very rarely, in fact. And that this is generally a good thing.

We're usually doing things in the world, and if you look at what we do (including thinking), much of it is "default." Stop and take a look some time (it's getting less likely to observe these days, as we're overstimulated 24/7). This is the realm of automaticity, habit, custom, etc., in which we all seem to live most of the time.

The point, to me, is to get that "irrational" and habitual aspect in line with, or used in the service of, one's goals and ultimate plans for one's life, decided rationally. Human action can be cultivated and shaped, as is well known, and we see the results in the great masters of various skills and domains. None of this implies we walk around in a theoretical or "rational" state or anything like that. We're only philosophers and scientists some of the time.

But I do indeed digress.

Not exactly. Either choice is, was, and will always be a rational one, if and only if, it followed from what they already believed to be the case. When someone makes a choice that makes perfect sense in light of many or most of their pre-existing beliefs, then they are involved in rational thinking. That's just how it works. — creativesoul

Not to me. Just because a decision is internally consistent with one's belief system does not make the decision, nor the belief system itself, rational.

If someone thought that getting rid of career politicians like Hillary Clinton was better than having someone like Trump in office, then it would be perfectly consistent and thus rational for them to vote Trump. — creativesoul

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. Like I said above, it's really not a matter of consistency.

A child believes he can fly and jumps out a window. The action was consistent with his worldview and his beliefs and, thus, rational. According to you.

I'm not American so I've got excellent social security but I do pay about 52% taxes after deductibles. I wouldn't know what a realistic upper middle class US family income would look like. — Benkei

Devils advocacy aside for a moment, would you prefer the current American model, all things being equal? The tax rate would be about half of wherever you are.

My youngest son developed epileptic seizures after about a week from being born. They ran a different test for about 2 weeks and he was hospitalised and monitored for 2.5 weeks. He received medicine for months, had physiotherapy for a year and logopedistic training to aid him with learning to swallow.

I saw the bills and the total in two years would've bankrupted me twice over. I didn't pay anything though as this was fully covered by insurance. I took 40 hours of paid care leave and called in sick the first few days, which is accepted in the Netherlands - it's assumed stress in such an event means you cannot work anyways.

Later in the year I agreed to take every other Wednesday off and work the other Wednesday from home to allow my wife some time off from taking care of the kids.

What would this have looked like in the US system?

There are studies that claim the US spends twice as much on healthcare and performs less well in medical outcomes compared to countries such as the Netherlands.

The cost of insurance and what it covers depends on factors like the size of the subscriber network, employer contribution, age, etc. For extensive medical care it's likely there would be deductibles, copays, and coverage limits, even for good plans.

In regard to paid leave...

Yeah. The USA is a nice place to visit....

What decisions?

Say, a decision to vote for or support a certain candidate.

We can argue about why they have this goal, as I want to do and in which there's interesting research about,

You seem to be advocating for a different position (or at least very much expanding) on what you were saying earlier. Here you say:

If you decide on a goal and to your best ability, given the available evidence, make a choice which you've concluded is in service of that goal, then you're being rational.

So, in the case of a proponent of traditional marriage he votes for a candidate who supports that and donates to that cause he'd be rational by that definition, but now you're saying that's not enough and that those goals are in question.

I feel like you're on solid ground with your first view. It basically takes the form "If X, then Y" with maybe Y having support of empirical data or logic. What you're supporting here is Kant's hypothetical imperative. Don't question the goal, only the means. Unless maybe the goal is in service to some higher goal. It might not be in the conservative's case though; some things (or some value) could be seen as ends in themselves.

The manufactured irrationality of their hierarchy. Meaning sacrificing all other values, which are in themselves (or collectively) of greater importance and greater benefit, for one value -- like transgender bathroom rights or traditional marriage or anything like that -- because you "feel" like it, is not only a mistake but an irrational choice.

You're talking about weighing values here, right? If you look at moral psychology liberals tend to highly value care and fairness while conservatives tend to place relatively equal weight on care, fairness, loyalty, sanctity, and respecting authority (this is from Haidt's research.)

Frankly, I don't see any easy way to resolve this. I mean don't get me wrong there there are insane religious extremists who would really highly value, say, sanctity and in group loyalty but I have no idea how I would go about convincing them that it's "rational" to adopt a more balanced view when their beliefs are tied up in their scriptures and weird psychological quirks. I just don't know.

I would tend not to use the word "irrational" to describe the 9/11 hijackers. They had a goal and they accomplished it well.

The fact that even their choices made for their stated goals often have the opposite effect.

This is fair. It ties back to the hypothetical imperative mentioned earlier. If your goal is A, and B has been empirically shown to be detrimental to A then choosing to go with B is irrational all else being equal.

Frankly, I don't see any easy way to resolve this. I mean don't get me wrong there there are insane religious extremists who would really highly value, say, sanctity and in group loyalty but I have no idea how I would go about convincing them that it's "rational" to adopt a more balanced view when their beliefs are tied up in their scriptures and weird psychological quirks. I just don't know. — BitconnectCarlos

You've touched, I think, on the heart of the issue. But again, I don't accept the idea that because neither you nor I have a foolproof way of convincing people to change their minds or that they're being irrational, that this somehow makes us wrong in our assessment that they are being irrational (in the sense I meant above).

I don't think that truth, moral or otherwise, is always equal. I do believe there are many truths, just as there are many philosophies, religions, and scientific theories throughout history. There's perspective and interpretation, etc. But it is possible to judge these things concretely. They stick around for long enough and exert the influence they do in the world to this very day (Aristotle, Jesus, Newton, etc) because there's something fundamentally right about all of them. Other perspectives and variations, less so or completely bogus. The question in the latter case becomes, Why do people believe weird things?

That, ultimately, is what I was getting at. You and I, and hopefully others, who show up for this conversation, on this forum, with the assumption that many people are acting irrationally, against their interests, can then have a more fruitful conversation -- cooperatively trying to figure out that question. If we get too stuck on words, the project can't get off the ground. I don't think it's wrong to engage in the philosophy, of course, especially given this is a philosophy forum, but given we're in a political thread it has the potential to slow things down to a crawl.

Given my above statement, I return to the initial question:

Why do conservatives vote against their own (economic) interests? I add "economic" so we don't get caught up in social issues, which I realize is often used as justification for voting Republican but which is precisely why I believe they're being irrational, as I maintain that it is precisely these social issues that have been manufactured through years of manipulation and propaganda. While there had to be some sentiment already there, the media has been used in the service of drawing out and intensifying these sentiments.

Look at the current Republican coalition. Their demographics are: older people, Whites, males, evangelicals, gun rights advocates, pro-life advocates, etc. Breaking each demographic down, one could trace much of this to values and morals based on religious beliefs, specifically a Protestant Christian philosophy of which the US is unique. Our Puritanical heritage remains today. But it's also -- and there's much overlap -- racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and, increasingly, anti-intellectualism. Above all else, a great deal of the voting, I suspect, and certainly behavior, is a result of absolute hatred for liberals. Liberals are now seen as the enemy: anti-American, anti-Christian. Homosexual atheists who want to open the country to everyone else and create a communistic dystopia.

The Republican establishment has, over the last 40 years or so (maybe more if you count the roots of this in Barry Goldwater), have adapted their agenda to bring in these groups. Reagan and Bush were pro-choice, remember.

Through their media -- talk radio and Fox News -- they've shaped the minds of millions of Americans to the point we see today. It's extremely dangerous.