It took several minutes to sink in, but a newly recognized reality found its way into my mind. This startling (to me) epiphany brought a new and deepening understanding of something that had long eluded my mental grasp. This happened during a discussion within a group I belong to of about a dozen members called The Socrates Club. We meet on a weekly basis to discuss subjects and questions submitted by members. They are a bit heavy on the intellectual side with a number of retired professors and PhDs—educators—teachers. I am one of the minority, not an educator, not a PhD.
One of the professors was expounding his disgust at Republicans and their anti education focus—their anti intellectualism. Another professor, also a PhD I believe, was saying how much he liked what Obama was doing as President and that he would certainly vote for him. My instant reaction was to wonder why these intelligent men could possibly approve of what Democrats were doing and what Obama was doing as President. I was a bit upset, thinking, how could they be so blind? I have great respect for the intelligence of each of these men from many discussions we have had.
Then came this sudden burst of brilliance this AHAH! moment—this mental nirvana. I then knew exactly why they expressed these feelings and thoughts. (In the comics this is portrayed with a lightbulb turning on above an individual’s head) After the light went on it made perfect sense. From their perspective they were absolutely right. I remembered a quotable statement I wrote many years ago and included in my first published collection, Words from the Lakeside.
“Somehow, we always get back to the basics. Right and wrong, good and evil, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder (or doer). Their rules are not immutable. They are lifestyle—cultural, social, political, or religious creations. They depend entirely on one’s own situation and belief system—whose side you are in, what your belief system demands, to what group you belong, or who eats whom. I am sure Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Saddam Hussein had quite different views of right and wrong from their victims."
—HJ, May 8, 2001
Why I never connected that thought with the political beliefs of individuals is beyond me. What I expressed in that paragraph more than eleven years ago now seems obvious to me. We each see good or evil, positive or negative, in any situation or activity, in the light of our perceptions of how it affects us, our families and friends. Different people have very different views based on many things including culture, race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, economic conditions—virtually any definable human condition, real or imagined. Right and wrong, good and evil are based on our perceptions, not reality. The next line in the same quotation applies to all creatures in our world including humans.
“Good and evil, right and wrong have very different meanings for a zebra than for a lion.”
Group 1, those who favor Obama and liberal Democrats: To many groups of individuals, what Obama and liberal Democrats are doing is commendable. These include almost all members of the following groups: government employees, union leaders, recipients of welfare and other government largess, socialists, communists, African Americans, and all entertainers including sports and TV news. Also in this group are a majority of the following: educators, the intellectual elite, union members, college students, owners and officers of mega corporations and especially of mega banks, trial lawyers, financial professionals, and major investors in the stock market and commodities.
You will note that most of these groups are little impacted by the recession. They believe and agree with those saying economic conditions are steadily improving. For example, investors in the stock market and large corporations are doing quite well, at least better than they were a year or so ago. You will also notice that few if any of these people consider themselves Middle Class Americans. Most of them are toward the top or bottom income segments while few are in the economic middle class. The exceptions are those other members of group1 who happen to fall in the middle income category. To a varying extent, all of these groups are being supported or at least helped financially by government. Consider all of the entitlements these groups receive. Actually there’s something from the government, a handout, for almost everyone. And who is it that pays for this growing financial drag on our economy? Hmmmmm?
Another factor is that these people usually make political judgements (emotional decisions) on the basis of what politicians say, not what they do. They are greatly influenced by the media and subject to their obvious bias.
Group 2, those against Obama and for conservative Republicans: The other groups of individuals see Obama and liberal Democrats as enemies of mostly the middle classes. Those who are the ones not faring so well with what Obama and liberal Democrats are doing, They are losing ground economically and see increasing government control and interference as intolerable. These include almost all Americans of self or independent motivation, such as: the owners and employees of small and medium sized businesses (the ones who create most private sector jobs), family farmers and small to medium corporate farm owners (not the mega corporate farm owners as they’re in the other group), entrepreneurs, and inventors. Member of this group were the ones most impacted by the mortgage melt down so skillfully created and manipulated by liberal Democrats.
Not so you say? Media talking heads were so totally committed to the support of group 1 that they hid what was happening at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Countrywide Financial. They labeled all those who warned of what was going to happen (and did) as racist, or anti poor and worse. If they had done their duty (as they loudly proclaim it), these shenanigans would have been exposed and maybe corrected before the disaster occurred. They deliberately avoided any mention of the real causes of the mortgage crisis and severely castigated those who did. If this had not been done, if the media had investigated and reported honestly, the truth would have been common knowledge and many more of those now in group 1 would be firmly in group 2. I wonder why? Hmmmmm?
One obvious reality is that this debacle moved more real wealth from middle class Americans to the 1% than has ever happened—by far. The number of middle class Americans who lost their entire fortunes, their nest egg for retirement, and were reduced from being somewhat secure financially to being penniless is staggering. Some say as high as fifty percent were devastated by the loss of the entire equity of their homes, the major investment and savings of most. Many went from a 30% to 50% equity to zero or being under water. At the same time, the banks (collectively) went from partial owners of these homes to 100% owners. And who made up these mostly paper losses for the banks, the megabanks who took over most of the small banks? These losses were made up on the backs of the same taxpayers who lost their equity. They received a double whammy.
These people are more apt to judge a politician by what he does rather than what he says. Still, politics is a totally emotional activity. Reason has very little to do with the selections of any voter.
Group 3, those in the middle, the uncommitted moderates: God only knows who they are and he's not telling. Years ago they were referred to as mugwumps, those who sit firmly on the fence with their mug on one side, and their wump on the other. They are hard to figure, but the TV talking heads have a great deal to say about everything and influence the final decisions of many. Experts who estimate these things say the media move at least half of centrist voters to vote according to their guidance. That is a major factor in any election.
Here’s a prediction from a respected black commentator who is on the conservative side. It bears out what I said about group 1.
By Dr. Walter Williams - October 2011
Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that
President Barak Obama will win a second term.
The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.
And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.
Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.
Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:
1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us,
2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that,
3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope,
4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide,
5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party,
6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics,
7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda,
8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist,
9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly,
10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.
-- Dr. Walter Williams
My own conclusions are fairly simple: People are driven and will vote according to their perceived self interest weighted by their emotions. The self interest of those in group 1 is perceived as being served by the pronouncements of liberals, socialists, the liberal media, and the entertainment world. These left of center groups need only give token attention to group 3. They could care less about group 2 except to immolate their candidates with ridicule, hatred and contempt. (It has become their modus operandi to call any who oppose them racist and other emotionally damaging names at every turn.) They know full well that class and other hatreds trump reason at election time and will use negative campaigning almost exclusively. It always works because it is infinitely easier to destroy than to build.
Sadly, Republicans candidates have adopted the same negative emotional strategy in their presidential primary campaigns. They have abandoned any high ground they had and lowered themselves to the egregious level of their liberal Democrat opponents. How stupid can they get? Their words will be used liberally by Democrats against whoever ends up as the Republican candidate. It’s like a comic opera or an old time burlesque routine. But they are politicians so what else could you expect?
I see the point Dr. Williams is making, but I see his predictions as too simplistic. One big and well known factor is that many in parts of the first group simply do not vote, at least not in as high a percentage as those in group 2. Also, I think the mix of ideas and understanding among many members of the first group accurately see socialism and expansion of government for the destructive force it is. In the end, everyone but a very select few will suffer major degradation of their lifestyle. Here’s what they know to be true. A government controlled economy has never in history succeeded for very long. A nation with men (and women) free to own property and generate wealth on their own initiative will quickly run circles around any similar nation with an economy controlled by government. This has held true since the Chinese tried it more than three thousand years ago. Look at the very different China of today as compared with the one in Mao’s Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976. It’s amazing what a little bit of economic freedom and the reversal of socialist doctrine can do.
As Margaret Thatcher remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Or, as George Bernard Shaw said, “A government policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” That quote accurately describes the government policy of liberals. That same policy has already generated a great many Pauls and reduced the number of Peters. I think Dr. Williams may be using reverse psychology to frighten the anti Obama forces so they will work harder to defeat him.
My conclusions? People will support and vote for those who they perceive will do the most for them and theirs, even to the detriment of many others. Voting is an emotionally controlled activity. It is completely self serving, the absolute opposite of an altruistic or even rational decision. Many will vote for those they think will punish any who have more than the one voting, even if they lose something in the process themselves. There is a major component of humanity whose most powerful desire is to see those with more, much more, of almost anything, brought down to or below their level. Think the men who flew those airplanes into the Twin Towers. That is an extreme example of this same human trait.
The following quote explains the described political reality in a democracy. It has been attributed to many sources.
“A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship.“
