Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Do People Often Vote Against Their Own Interests?
The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Americans voicing their anger at the healthcare proposals at a "town hall meeting" Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.
In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called "the paranoid style" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.
If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.
He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:
Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."
Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.
"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."
Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: "One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him."
Reverse revolution
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.
He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.
The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.
Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."
As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.
260 Comments so far
Show AllThat's not the question. the question is "Why do the most campaign dollars buy every election?"
Nietzsche asked "That's not the question. the question is 'Why do the most campaign dollars buy every election?'" (Although there are have been a few counter-examples of this.) I think the answer is that money can buy a whole lot of messages aimed at manipulating the emotions and by-passing the rational brain. These messages use sophisticated psychological techniques. It also seems that the more frequently these messages are seen and heard, the more effective they are. More money means more sophisticated ads; more money means more of such ads; more money means these ads are on for a longer period of time.
The return of the fairness doctrine to the public airwaves would help in countering this equation of $$ = elected.
Clinical Psychology 101: the client has the power. It's the therapist's job to reveal that power in a way the client can accept.
Engineering 101: if the operators don't like your machine, it ain't gonna work.
Community Organising 101: the organiser's job is to get the people to the point where they have the power to decide what they want. And then to get out of the way and *let* them decide.
Great points, Mairead.
Unfortunately Obama's financial industry and health care policies and actions to date are 90% corporate welfare and will cause the victims further pain and suffering. The US electorate is being given a choice between buying Obama's (and Congress')myths or buying the teabaggers (and FOX News') myths. The result is public perception that the proposed machine is no more inoperable than the existing one.
Neither the Obama Regime or FOX/teabaggers are letting facts get in the way of their devious stories.
I can't disagree with a word of that, Ray.
So, do we have a place in that equation/process/scam/debacle/whatever? The "we" who come to places like CD, I mean?
Look at the face of that lady in the picture. There is your answer.
Sure, she looks demented. But the question is: why?
Is it because she really *is* demented and irrational? Or just that she's so filled with frustrated rage at the unresponsive corporate-owned political system that she's at the end of her rope?
Odds are that it's the latter.
What you said.
uh huh, what he said
At the end of their rope . . . and yet, on schedule, they vote against their own self-interest.
At the end of their rope, their survival instinct should tell them to stop the stupidity.
But not those subhuman morons.
the lady in the background looks composed.
you must be referring to the gorgon.
People vote against their own interests for several reasons, but the most prominent one to me is the willingness of people to let themselves be manipulated.
In a contest between the analytical forebrain and the instinctual brain stem, the brain stem wins a solid majority of the time.
You are right of course. Because the brain stem is about thirty million years older we cannot help but 'feel' it is telling us the truth. It's hard to ignore gut feelings. It's hard to think, even from our necessarily biased point of view.
Thinking is new to us. If we had the time we might become more skilled at thinking.
deleted
But do we have the time, do we have the time?
I wonder.
Gary
“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.”
-- Oscar Wilde
A friend of mine recently got a nasty cut on his thumb. He went to the local ER, and was charged over $1,500.00 for three stitches. Fortunately, he's a retired veteran and has Tri-Care(I think that's what it's called). If the woman in the picture broke those downcast thumbs, went to the ER, and was charged $1,500 or more for the X-Rays, radiologist, cast, aspirin, and whatever else, would she blame Obama? Yes. Under Bush, she would likely have been happy some terrorist didn't snap her thumbs. Rich or poor, there really is a sucker born every minute.
There are better social reasons for this phenomenon. Start with the low intelligence level of many Americans--even those who managed to graduate college, like Bush; add to that the lack of intellectual curiosity, lack of reading, ignorance of history and the dominance of religion in this culture. These forces all work to blunt the intelligence and disorient the individual away from his/her own self interest and towards authority. The American middle and working classes have always been anti-intellectual. Rather than not wanting to be told what's good for them, Americans yearn for an authority figure--and they find it more in rightwing authoritarian leaders like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Roberts than in liberals like Obama (who couldn't lead his party out of the proverbial paper bag). Ignorant masses--and make no mistake, most Americans are ignorant--look to authoritarianism, and folksy paternalists like Bush. Obama was more populist during his campaign, where he never got into any Gore-like details about his policies (probably because he didn't have any; still doesn't). This is what gave him an edge over McCain's non-populist personality. Bottom line: Americans are lazy, non-thinking fundamentalists at heart, just waiting for a leader to bring them into the promised land.
May I object to your statement on Bush. He is a very smart man. And he knows his limits, at least once he took advise to shut up and stay on script.
Mr. Bush is also reality based. He knows people. He knows they like a good execution, because it is the visible sign of justice. He knows people like to have revenge, therefore, the invasion of Iraq was popular. He knows people are entertained with games, and desire cheap food.
He is a very smart front man for the ruling elite. As long as he stayed on script.
PS. I disliked him because he has economically, politically and culturally harmed the USA.
DCH
PS. I disliked him because he has economically, politically and culturally harmed the USA.
Stealing from Mairead above because it is so appropriate..
"Bingo. Nail, meet hammer."
"Americans are lazy, non-thinking fundamentalists at heart, just waiting for a leader to bring them into the promised land."
No question about it, Donna.
donna
You might consider that the reason that most Americans vote for candidates like Bush or Obama is the fact that they present themselves as centrists for the most part when they are running which is where most of the country resides politically.
They will regularly reject extremists of either side.
I would also suggest that Americans are not what you suggest, if anything they are better informed and more politically active than ever before.
"The American middle and working classes have always been anti-intellectual. Rather than not wanting to be told what's good for them, Americans yearn for an authority figure"
Anti-intellectual?, or just refusing to be talked down to by the self appointed or told whats best for them by educated elites that decided they know whats best for everyone. There's quite a difference between the two. Most people don't care for hubris in any guise.
You may be a bit hasty in your opinion I believe.
Caligula:
They don't "yearn for an authority figure," though. They want a "Leader"--just as the Germans did 80 years ago. A "Leader" doesn't get followers by pulling rank and dictating to them. He gets a following by "being" one of them, reminding them of their SHARED losses, their grievances, the unfairness of it all. They love him for articulating their sense of grievance at the loss of their birthright. Then the Leader gradually suggests "how" they became so deprived, then "who dunnit" to them, and finally how they, with him, would get back all they have had taken away from them.
Of course, what they get is an authority figure, but they get there by being authoritarians themselves at heart and so finding it easy to believe that the Leader they are getting is an extension of themselves (it is, after all, true), whose authority will be brought to bear on "the Other," on behalf of THEM.
Every time a "true German" of the 1930s saluted Hitler, s/he did it in the spirit of solidarity with Hitler, the big brother, not in abasement to him.
That is what Fascist "leaders" know; that and how to pick out those less convinced and present them as "the other" to their countrymen. Those "camps" are for "the worst-of-the-worst of our enemies, traitors, evil-doers--not for me!"
George Bush was, of course, the perfect Leader: the man of the people.
Low intelligence or lacking education? I think by and large the rest of the world is as stupid as we are, but we have more and bigger TVs per capita. We're proud of our TVs. READ?! What the...? Ask most idiots in this country what book they're currently reading and they'll give you a funny look, as if to say, "What's the matter with you? No TV?"
"I think by and large the rest of the world is as stupid as we are, ....."
I beg to differ. I was brought up in Northern Europe and my parents had 7 years of education between them. That's elementary school. However, they read newspapers and books - they were avid readers - and were up-to-date on current events ALL OVER THE WORLD (unlike Americans who think the whole world is them), and understood the difference between extreme right wing, right wing, centrist, left and extreme left. They understood laissez faire capitalism and they understood Marxism/Leninism and everything in between. These people didn't even make it to junior highschool as far as formal education. THEY USED THEIR BRAINS. THEY HAD CURIOSITY. THEY KNEW THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING INFORMED TO VOTE IN THEIR OWN INTERESTS, ETC. ETC.
These were not just my parents. They were everyone I knew - formally educated or not. Then as an adult I lived in England and Canada and found the same thing. I was impressed with the regular English bloke who had no formal eduction but a vast knowledge of history and politics and kept up with current events. At first I found it astonishing and was impressed that I could go to a "working man's pub" with mainly blue collar labourers as clientelle, and have scintilating discussions about world events and politics, as if I was on a USA university campus.
Try having these discussions in small towns in red-neck bars in USA. HA HA HA
I totally disagree with you r-u-thru about the rest of the world being as stupid as millions of Americans.
However, after this negative label on Americans, I do have to say that I received my education and became politically aware, and politically active in the USA - in Berkeley, California in the late 60's.
Most of my friends in Canada read books and do not watch tv. Please don't compare the tea party rabid rabble with the rest of the world.
The rest of the world is laughing and absolutely stunned how stupid some Americans are.
You make many good points. I have relatives in Canada and Europe and I know you are correct in what you say. Still, I wonder WHY??? Is it the arrogance of the USA that fosters such ignorance? It is not so much stupidity, but the utter lack of interest in anything outside the insulated little world of the U.S. that baffles me. Pure racism is also a big factor--it keeps working people fighting each other for the crumbs.
Now, now... I did say "by and large" which does mean near to. I checked it out.
Northern European, huh? Northern Europeans have the highest standard of living in the world, I'll grant you that. But you don't have rednecks. You laugh at our rednecks, ya haa? Just wait till our rednecks come goosestepping down your high street toting bibles and automatic weapons. Then you won't be laughing. Our problems soon become everyone elses as you may have already noticed.
Smart people don't stand a chance.
Nietzsche,
May I try to answer your question? ""Why do the most campaign dollars buy every election?""
Because there are two kinds of campaigns.
A. The problem is defined by the candidate, examined by the candidate, and solved by the candidate.
B. The candidate says to the motley crowd: "I will lie for you, steal for you, cheat for you. I will go hungry for you, work without sleep for you, die for you...etc."
Remember Mr. Obama was candidate B. Mr. Nader was candidate A. Hillary and John were lesser candidate B's.
Who won?
It seems to me that the media is paid quite a bit to make them think and vote this way. FOX is blatant about it but you don't see the other networks, papers, etc. explaining single payer or trying to actually educate the public and put things in context.
That's the brainstem media for ya!
Why the anger? This answer to that question is not complicated. These people lead lives of empty, boring repetition and are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives to change the situation. Their only dim response is that it is someone else's fault and since they have been manipulated into believing that leaders are the answer that is who they direct their anger at. They have a very deep hatred for themselves and it spills over on just about everything else.
They suffer so from over-exposure to US Manifest Insanity, they hurt themselves.
The reason people vote against their own interests is that there isn't enough pressure from the left to counter the right wing pressure. The Republicans are disciplined and voters know what to expect. The Democrats are fractured with conservative, moderate, and liberal factions and then there are the third party freaks fighting hard to make the Republicans win. Progressives have nowhere to go if they can't pick a party and stick with it. The conservatives can keep their party united and moving to the right but the progressives are divided on whether to stick to the Democratic Party or join a third party that has no chance of winning. If progressives would only unite and concentrate on pushing the Democratic Party back to the left, voters wouldn't feel like voting against their own interests. The progressives also need to work hard on the issues. We can mourn the loss of Howard Zinn, shout about two doctors advocating single payer getting arrested, and complain about Nader being right Obama being wrong but what about getting out there and doing something about it? Right wingers take action every time while few progressives take action and get clubbed or laughed at. If I advocate contacting your representatives and putting pressure on them and the White House, I get replies justifying inaction and endless Obama trashing 24/7/365/4.
Because they're stupid slaves.
"This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US."
Thank God!!
Typical Obama apologist article.
"Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country," "What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence."
Typical democratic propaganda.
"In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%."
Typical dishonesty.
He forgot to mention...
"a disproportionate percentage of Hispanics are uninsured at the national level, it is worth noting that a number of states with the highest percentages of uninsured are also states with large percentages of Hispanic residents."
DUH! We still have over 2 million illegals resident. We certainly have close to 1/6 the children in Texas, the children of those illegals, both citizen and not. We also have a younger median age.
When you look at things honestly and not look for ways to skew facts to support your predrawn conclusion, things look quite different.
His presupposition that not favoring democrats is to the detriment of the poor is flawed to say the least.
He did hit a truth here though:
"This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises."
"But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help."
Irony abounds.
I was having a conversation with my sister-in-law a couple of days ago. I love her, but she's a rock-solid Republican (of the AM radio sort). She's also college educated and retired and 62.
She's railed against "Obamacare" and while I don't know where she got that moniker, I can well imagine.
Anyway, she said that since she retired (she owned a small business with her husband) she has been on COBRA health insurance. Of course, she admitted that it was due to Obamaaaaa (stated with dripping disgust) that COBRA was extended to 3 years. So, effectively, due to someone she voted against, she will be covered by the COBRA extension until the age of 65...when she can get Medicare (said without a trace of irony in her voice).
I mention all this just to highlight the point of this article - Americans (people in general?) are more emotion-based than we are rational-based. We really do use our brain stem to the exclusion of our higher-thinking brain. We are, effectively, a nation of children (no intention to slander children is meant).
Not a good scenario for a healthy outcome.
"she has been on COBRA health insurance. Of course, she admitted that it was due to Obamaaaaa (stated with dripping disgust) that COBRA was extended to 3 years."
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to read something obomber has done to improve average people's lives. If only he could do more good than harm, I'd actually like him instead of feeling mostly disgust.
I know somebody that was able to refinance their mortgage due to some of obomber's programs. They actually support obomber and defend him sometimes when I disparage him. I will be getting a 30% tax credit for the installation of a new heater thanks to obomber's stimulus plan.
If he were only shrewd enough to pull of a 10% reduction in DoD expenditures and subsidize alternative energy instead of king CONG (coal, oil, nuclear, and gas), and return to more progressive taxation, I'd be willing to vote for him. Anything more would surely get him killed.
Every journey begins with a single step.
Well, see...it wasn't me who said Obamaaaa with disgust, it was my Republican sister-in-law. I just saw the irony of her bitching about Obamacare on one hand and taking the fruit of his labor with the other.
See my point?
Is her husband a fascist too? That might explain the bitching. I've noticed that when somebody admits to being a fascist, it says a lot about their character.
She's not a fascist, nor is her husband. Quite the contrary, they are very good people and I'm very fond of them. That's the trap we fall into when considering the "other side."
What she is, is frustrated, angry, and a bit scared - like many of us on the Left. She listens to AM radio and watches FOX news, we read Common Dreams and listen to Democracy Now. Each side gets what they think they need from their own sources.
As for the bitching: You haven't been on Common Dreams long, have you?
It's time for us to quit this pointing of fingers crap - it only serves to point back at us.
My point is that while far from perfect, Obama is doing good as well as not-so-good things. If we are going to eviscerate him for doing things we don't like, then we should at least praise him for what we do like - especially when we are the recipients.
"...not been here long, have you?" Oh, Ted, don't you know who I am? Haven't been here long, that's funny.
"Oh, Ted, don't you know who I am?"
No, why don't you tell me who you are? Matter of fact, why don't we all tell each other who we are? Why don't we come out from behind our made-up handles and give our real names? Are we that afraid of each other? Or, are we afraid that it will limit what we say to each other? Hell, maybe if we quit sniping at one another from behind anonymous handles, we could actually get somewhere!
Hi, I'm Ted Markow and I live in Maine. I'm married, live in the 'burbs, garden, practice permaculture, started a permaculture group, belong to transition towns, am starting a simplicity/lower consumption group. I work in retail, so don't earn a ton of money, but I don't need a ton of money (and I hope to keep it that way, as long as my health holds). I have been a Democrat and a Green and am now independent. I have worked on several political campaigns as well as being a state delegate for Jerry Brown. For all of this, I struggle with my part in this huge machine that is our common culture. I don't have the answer to whatever the question is, but I am working to walk my talk every day. Not easy, but essential to helping this world move in a positive way.
I see the stuff that drives everyone crazy, and I go a little crazy too. However, after many years of banging my head against the wall, I have come to realize that the best work I can do is to change myself and to connect with others who are struggling to change themselves as well. And while I hurt, like so many others, because of what is being done by humanity, I must start with changing a very small corner of it - myself.
Ted Markow, imperfect, struggling human, Maine
Well, Ted, I must say, you certainly have a passion for blogging. I must apologize for the delay of this response. Immediately after I clicked my last response to you, my mouse failed me. I've replaced it.
I must also apologize for using the term, fascist, to refer to your sister and her husband. I have long associated republicans with fascists because I haven't been able to find a difference between the two, so far. Democrats are not much better. Anyway, I meant no disrespect to you, but I've heard republicans referred to as a lot worse on this news blog.
I'm a Green.
I've been around for many years on this blog. When CD changed their discussion format a year or so ago, I had to change my handle. I used to just post as ruthru, better known to my cohorts here as ruthie.
Between most of the commenters on this site and AM Radio / Fox, I can't tell the difference. You should have seen some of the nasty responses I received for offering a friendly reminder that the endless Obama trashing 24/7/365/4 must stop. I don't like what Obama is done but we have to do something about it. I only get to visit this site once in a week or two but nothing ever changes. The same kind of articles show up and it's constant Obama trashing and lynching anyone who disagrees. You're a great man Ted and people on this site could learn from you and put it to work.
When I'm not working, I usually attend local community meetings and share progressive ideas. I wished all the commenters would do something progressively positive and share it with us with relation to the article.
CD needs to change the frequency of posting certain articles by certain authors. Frank Rich, Robert Kuttner, The Nation, and all are nice but the articles those authors write trigger endless Obama trashings from the commenters with hate and violence.
Obama's accomplishments need be made known along with suggested improvements.
"...it's constant Obama trashing and lynching anyone who disagrees."
Have the people posting on CD grossly overlooked something he's accomplished in the face of a superminority congress? C'mon give us the facts. We all want to know. You managed to leave out a cursory list of his accomplishments in the course of your complaint.
>>>>Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?
The answer is simple enough: BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!
Yes, all of comments about the problems with the people have some truth in them, but when people DO vote for a candidate who is supposedly out for their best interests it truns out he was just lying and screws the people anyway.
In short, the people are not offered real choices, and they have not figured out how to make the choices real instead of what is sreved up to them -- and that mkes them feel powerless -- and that's a disincentive to put any real thought into it since 'it doesn't matter anyway'. If people could get hold of real power then they would pay a lot more attention and put effort into thinking. Otherwise it's a bit like researching past rainfall, how dry the crops are, and 'deciding' what the weather is going to be tomorrow. What's the point? Might as well just have fun doing a rain dance.
Bingo. Nail, meet hammer.
Why Do People Often Vote Against Their Own Interests?
Because people clearly do not know or understand that which is authentically in their best interest. This may largely be because they selfishly want what THEY want, in spite of the needs of the whole.
To paraphrase "honest" Abe: All politicians lie. Some lie all the time, some lie some of the time, but none tell the truth all of the time. Why? Because in a society in which few will take more than 10 seconds to learn the truth of anything, it is far easier to lie than to tell the truth. It is certainly more financially rewarding to lie (as in advertising) that to state the facts. The nation's biggest liar (Fox--truth is what we feel it should be) is now credited with being the most credible news organization.
2300 years ago, Aristotle wrote the definitive works on how to learn the truth. Very few have listened to him since.
The author is flat-out WRONG. Most Americans vote against their own best interests because they are either 1) Uninformed about the issue, 2) Too lazy/stupid to try and understand the issue, 3) Have had the issue explained perfectly to them - like in the Al Gore/Bush debate example, above - but too stupid to comprehend the explanation.
Sorry for the bluntness, but the plain fact is that the vast majority of the American sheeple are just plain STUPID. Don't believe me? How about all the tea-baggers out there with signs saying "Down with Socialism! Leave my Medicare alone!" - Too idiotic to understand that medicare is, itself, a form of socialism. They reject the idea of paying taxes to insure every American, but yet they have no problems paying taxes to insure all Americans over 65 years old.
Americans are stupid. It's that simple. And so, they vote against their own best interests.
You get the government you deserve. And America richly and justly DESERVES the capitalistic, corporatistic, oligarchic, fascist government they have.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935