What do the voters want?

After the second presidential debate, much ink and airtime is being wasted on pointless questions about who is swaying what audience.

In our society, by the nature of our manic individualism manifested in a religious zealotry for equality, we cannot speak of people making up their minds. Instead, we assume they act in groups according to what is convenient for them.

The result is a simpleton’s view of the average voter, who as someone saturated in media, not loaded with time, and in up to 1/2 of the cases not loaded with brains either, as someone who responds like a digital switch.

If their special issue is flagged, the switch goes to on. For this reason, politicians spend a lot of time attempting to pander to various groups in the hope that enough will add up to make a win.

As a result, we think we know what the voters want.

However, this is an illusion. Categories overlap. People value some things more than convenience. Very many people are either totally irrational, or have issues unrelated to their lifestyle category.

What makes sense instead is to think of voters (a) as a series of strata by ability and (b) as people who pick a single issue to symbolize the type of change they would like to see in their country.

For example, when social conservatives rail on about abortion, they’re really saying they’d like a country where sex and death are sacred. That implies that other things are sacred, and other behaviors are off the menu.

For Republicans and moderates, this election is having a gelling effect. They don’t like the direction the country is going, as a whole. It has gone down a bad path, and it isn’t the type of society we want, and we’ve put up with it for a long time figuring a break was around the corner, but then life got bad and right after that, the economy collapsed.

This economic collapse isn’t all that important except as a political talking point. People gave up on unbridled capitalism with the Great Depression; with the 2007-2012 screwup they’re giving up on regulated entitlement states.

The thinking is that if neither works, go with the one that you can at least plan for and evade the worst of it. Some have even figured out that the 2007 disaster started in 1992-1996 when we converted to an “information economy” based on selling ourselves entertainment products. Thanks, Bill Clinton.

Right now the left wants more of an entitlement state. This is because most people, when things aren’t working, assume that people just aren’t loyal enough to the group or the idea, and so they re-apply their failed methods, but push harder.

This is not what most people in the country want.

They do not like the entitlement state because it transfers wealth from growth-areas to dead-ends, in the name of fixing poverty. It is an unstable place, with many speech codes and a Party elite in media, academia and government who weed out unbelievers using social ostracization as a weapon.

Avoiding that bad path, what most people want is a sensible living path. This doesn’t summarize well, which is why they vote for symbols. They want a low-drama place that allows productive people to live normal lives unimpeded by government, in family-friendly (socially conservative) neighborhoods, surrounded by people like them.

Under liberalism, you cannot have that, because ideology demands we all embark on the great progressive quest. This search for an external purpose hides an internal void. The most common substitute for filling the void is charity, altruism and egalitarianism. Society becomes a “keeping up with the Joneses” contest to see who can help the poor the most. which makes a looter’s paradise that discriminates against healthy, normal citizens.

If you wondered why this election is so crucial, you can see why here. We’re at a crossroads, and most of our country wants to take a path away from the path we were on. But there’s an angry junior group that would rather destroy it than leave behind their ideology, and so a mortal conflict has been unleashed.


  1. ferret says:

    As a result, we think we know what the voters want…

    And in this case we know even less about what the voters need.

  2. ferret says:

    “Why wouldn’t a grown man cry?”

    Men are inward crying, often with the burning alcoholic tears.

    1. Tucken says:

      Well said =). Bitter sailor drops, of whisky.

    2. Men are afraid to cry, so they pretend that what makes them want to cry doesn’t exist. Then they rally together to murder anyone who points out that reasons for crying are actually real.

  3. crow says:

    Maybe Tucken has gone mad
    suspecting ego might be bad
    in a moment of madness tries his wings
    forgetting people see these things.

    And as he flaps and finds his beak
    the noise he makes could last all week
    one hopes that he’ll discover that
    he’s come to knowing where he’s at.

    While people do what people do
    acting out and being fools
    it’s never them, they’re not to blame
    they just don’t know it’s all a game.

    Upon his branch the crow looks down
    unable to either laugh or frown
    impassive face behind a beak
    that murmurs, cackles, croons and shrieks.

    1. Tucken says:

      I don’t suspect ego is bad.

      Perhaps these posts will clear things up, or they won’t. Either case I tried. It’s a laughing matter, all absurd. You laugh.

      1. He’s making a very good point, and doing so as gently as possible.

        Ego can consist in demanding a BMW, or demanding attention.

        Here, if you want attention, it must be for contributions that add to discussion. Part of that is brevity and relevance to others.

        FWIW, *I* think you have a lot to contribute, but not in the present form.

        Of course no one listens to *me*, at least unless I make a good point.

  4. crow says:

    What do the voters want?
    They want it all.
    But most of all,
    they want.

    This is really what is wrong with society. This wanting.
    Desire. Desire for oneself, or for society at large.
    It’s still desire.
    Quell that desire, and men become free.
    Social ostracism would become ineffective.
    No fear of judgement.
    No fear of being less.
    No fear of being too much.
    No fear.

    1. Desire for an external solution to the problem of having to be alive and find meaning in it.

  5. “Right now the left wants more of an entitlement state. This is because most people, when things aren’t working, assume that people just aren’t loyal enough to the group or the idea, and so they re-apply their failed methods, but push harder.”

    But which Left? There is no single Left. There is rich left, poor left, Jewish left, black left, Mexican left, Asian left, gay left, and etc.
    As 2/3 of the superrich are Democrats, the old GOP the Rich Party vs Democrats the Workers’ Party no longer applies.

    I think the Rich Left thought it could handle more government with Obama, though to be sure, the superrich want socialized medicine not so much to expand healthcare spending as to restrict and control it. Under a socialized system, everyone is guaranteed access but the state controls the availability.
    Also, the Wall Street rich supported Obama as a kind of cover. They knew Americans were angry with them, and so Obama’s presidency gave the impression that America was now in control by a ‘socialist’. But what did Obama really do? He bailed out Wall Street, and he didn’t raise taxes.

    Even so, Obama raised deficits sky high, and the Rich Left may be nervous about Too Much Spending. As Democrats, they are loathe to admit this is a problem and that it has to stop. So, even while pretending to be appalled by Romney and Ryan, they might use underhanded means to have Romney elected in order to reverse some of Obama’s more government-heavy programs. That way, the Rich Left gets to kill two birds with one stone. Obama -ism is ended but this ‘dirty work’ is done by a ‘greedy’ Republican. (Similarly, NYers turned to a Republican to reduce crime; Having a ‘conservative’ do the dirty work is convenient to liberals. If they are blamed for ‘racism’, they can always point to the ‘heartless conservative’.)
    Romney would give the Rich Left what it really wants(reversing Obama’s dangerous levels of deficits) even as the Rich Left tepidly continues to support Obama and pretend to be offended by Romney’s ‘selfish capitalism’.

    It’s like how the evil general handled people in PATHS OF GLORY. He undermines some officers even while pretending to be on their side.

    1. There is no single Left.

      No, there isn’t.

      But it doesn’t matter.

      The left is a singular entity because it has a single idea, and whether they mean it or not, they’re all forcing it on us.

      Thus, there is a single left.

  6. EvilBuzzard says:

    In Econ 101 I learned that the voters have unlimited wants that are far beyond the resource capacity of any functioning society to ever satisfy. I listen to what people like our current POTUS say, and believe it. He promises they really can have everything they want as long as they make someone else fork it over. The typical voter thus has the morality of the rampaging Visigoth.

    1. In Econ 101 I learned that the voters have unlimited wants that are far beyond the resource capacity of any functioning society to ever satisfy.

      I think this is the core of it, really.

      Scarcity exists.

      Even if we got rid of material scarcity, there would still be scarcity of time, and of opportunity.

      The human conflict is a moral one. Do we find a purpose for ourselves, or not? A constructive, creative purpose, I mean.

      Without it, we become parasites.

      1. crow says:

        Creative. That’s the important concept.
        That’s the bit created in God’s image.
        The rest is just the means to manifest it.
        Or the means to use the means, to become parasitical.

    2. crow says:

      I’ve always had a soft-spot for Visigoths.
      But yes, I can see how they might not have been entirely useful.

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        You wind them up and make sure you point them in the opposite direction.

        1. crow says:

          That’s so obvious, it needs to be clearly stated.
          All Visigoths should be manufactured with a clearly visible warning to this effect.

          1. EvilBuzzard says:

            Like US Army Claymore Mines “Front Towards Enemy.”

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.962 seconds