My Provocative Hypothesis Explaining Why Most Republicans Vote Against Their Own Interests
I was enjoying CurrentTV's relatively new progressive news show "The Young Turks" and one of their reporters was doing a "man on the street" segment.
To be fair, the questions were pretty loaded/biased:
"What do you think about Romney hiding his wealth in secret offshore accounts and paying a 14% effective tax rate?"
The multiple responses from Republicans were tantamount to:
"Good for him. He's smart. So long as it's legal he should pay less. if it's legal then anything goes."
Now it's gotta be obvious to everyone that the more Romney pays in taxes the less the rest of us have to pay (less national debt) and the less Romney pays in taxes the more the rest of us have to pay (more national debt).
So for those thinking purely selfishly, shouldn't they want him to pay more? If you are looking out for your own self-interest then you want others to pay more so that you have to pay less. Ceteris paribus, that is necessarily true. Right?
But the Libertarian/Republican mindset is popularly understood to be more "selfish" in the Ayn Rand sense of the word and therefore necessarily less altruistic. So why should an Ayn Rand-Libertarian/Republican be so comfortable with a policy that is against his own interests?
Perhaps these people are so very principled that they think, for the meritocracy to work, the rules should be set in stone for all and if the system can be "gamed" then that's part of the meritocracy (i.e. the clever who outsmart the system deserve their rewards).
But as attractive as that may be to the Libertarians/Republicans who see themselves as principled, that doesn't really square with their fundamental philosophy. If you are truly selfish (i.e. living only for yourself) then there should be no system that you endorse that has negative results for you.
Think of the varying rules for boxing matches or negotiated formats for political debates. Any specific rule may give an advantage to one side (e.g. a knockout artist might want no "Standing eight count" and an uncharismatic politician might want to outlaw "audience applause"). It's nearly a tautology that the setting of the rules necessarily affects the outcomes.
Aha! There's a way to explain this phenomenon (where Libertarians/Republicans advocate for a rule that works against themselves) after all. Maybe such people think that they are "better" and, if given a fairly meritocratic system, they will therefore eventually succeed.
I now refer you to the brilliant, recent episode of Futurama (entitled "Decision 3012", written by Patric Verrone):
Richard Nixon's head: I promise to cut taxes for the rich and use the poor as a cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel!
[The audience applauds.]
Fry: That'll show those poor!
Leela: You're not rich.
Fry: But someday I might be rich, and people like me better watch their step!
However, the real data shows that "economic mobility" in the United States is now pretty terrible compared to many European countries. This means a modern American man's earnings is more closely tied to what his dad earned compared to a Swede, Canadian, Fin, Dane, Norwegian, German or Frenchman. Only the British have slightly worse (more stagnant) economic mobility.
Ok, so is it that simple?
Is it that most Libertarians/Republicans are simply deluded into thinking they're "better" and simultaneously hoodwinked into thinking they have substantial economic mobility? When the truth is that Americans really don't have good economic mobility (compared to other countries and especially compared to America in the middle of the 20th century).
Maybe so (IMHO).
But I'm now going to pose a very provocative and largely unsubstantiated hypothesis.
I deliberately don't even call it a "theory" out of respect for the scientific method.
Drumroll…
Ok,here it is - it's the infamous adage: "Honor Among Thieves".
First of all: Why is there "Honor Among Thieves"?
Sure one can validly argue that the expression is actually false because, when it comes right down to it, criminals will rip each other off and snitch to save themselves.
Nevertheless, that concept feels at least intuitively true. And why is that? I assume, at its most basic, the answer is "kinship". Criminals simply recognize commonality in each other even if only in the form of a "common enemy" (the police, sucker citizens etc.)
The "Honor Among Thieves" concept made me think of my previous post about "Defining "Good" via Descendants' Prosperity" -
Maybe take a minute to click on that link to my blog post and skim it as a refresher.
Ok, you got it?
You back now?
Sweet. Then let me continue my potentially libelous (but at least somewhat falsifiable with further research) hypothesis.
If you're used to "gaming the system" yourself and especially if you think you're good at it (or similarly if you think you'd do worse under a less-gameable system) then you're invested in the status quo. You wouldn't want the rules or enforcement to change because that might hurt you relative to the current situation.
It's just like the boxing and debate analogies. You think you've got an extra advantage with the current rules (which allow for gaming/hacking/tricking the system in certain ways) so you'll tolerate others doing similar tactics.
Here's another analogy: if you think you're a good bluffer in poker then you certainly don't want to outlaw bluffing. And you can rationalize it because everyone has the same opportunity for bluffing so it can reasonably be defined as fair for all.
Of course, this all circles back to the first explanation - most Libertarians/Republicans are still wrong.
The regular Libertarians/Republicans actually can't game the system remotely the way the Romneys of the world can because such complex tactics require substantial investments in lawyers, accountants & lobbyists (which the regular people simply can't afford, let alone amortize for a good ROI).
So even if there exists something like "Honor Among Thieves" which motivates some or most Libertarians/Republicans, in the end they're still voting against their own interests.
For those who doubt that most Libertarians/Republicans vote against their own interests please review these books (or at least some relevant Wikipedia links) before attempting to debate with me:
LINKS:
- CurrentTV - http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/is-mitt-romney-hiding-money-in-the-cayman-islands-the-american-way
- Futurama Episode - http://theinfosphere.org/Decision_3012
- Economic Mobility Poll - http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Economic_Mobility/Economic_Mobility_Post_Recession_Poll.pdf
- Economic Mobility Data - http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/2/economic%20mobility%20sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf
- Economic Mobility Overview - http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/100516/inequality-mobility-economy-america-recession-divergence
- My previous post about "rigging the system" for one's descendants - http://corpania.blogspot.com/2009/08/defining-good-via-descendants.html
.
No comments:
Post a Comment