Social issues alway trump economic issues...?

[kentuck]

I heard someone on TV a couple of days ago make a similar remark. Do you think it is true? Do people care more about their soul than their bodies? Do they care more about Heaven than Earth? Even if they are unemployed and their children are hungry, they will vote for a "Christian" before they will vote for a pagan, even if the pagan offers them a good job and a college education?

[Rageneau]

1. Hey, only stupid people would vote primarily for social issues.

Anyone who would vote against his own economic situation and against his own country's future interests simply because of "social" issues is stupid.

Problem is, there's a LOT of stupid people.

[Warpy]

2. Of course not. If they did, the Dems would be in power.

If the GOP hadn't sweetened the poisoned religious right pot with those illusory tax cuts, they'd be out of power.

The Democrats have offered exactly nothing to working people in the last two elections but a bunch of platitudes and a few plans that would help the yuppies out while ignoring the vast majority of people in this country.

And that is why they can't get elected.

Clinton knew it was the economy, and he campaigned like an economic populist, even though he governed from the GOP playbook.

The party needs to abandon the conservative policies that have kept it out of power. It's time to look to progressives like Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana for the way to get elected, even in GOP states.

[blue neen]

3. IMHO, it doesn't seem to ring true.

You're not going to be thinking about your soul too much when you're hearing your children cry from hunger.

I know there are people who WOULD vote that way, but to say that social issues ALWAYS trump economic issues...:shrug:

Survival is a very strong instinct.

[Double T]

4. The BIGGEST PROBLEM is the perception............

the 'pagan' may not be 'so' pagan, and the 'christian' may not be 'so' christian. If social issues trumped economic issues, the rethugs would NOT BE IN CHARGE AND WOULD NOT HAVE 'WON' ELECTIONS. Hopefully a 'change' is coming SOON!!!!!

[Orangepeel]

5. How about: being the best you can be or being better than someone else?

There are two ways to feel powerful. One is to actually get power. The other is to keep it away from somebody else. Unfortunately, the second way is easier (because those that have power don't have to give it up). The "social issues" that trump economic issues almost always involve placing restrictions on others.

[loyalsister]

6. maybe......

Consider the cliche: "if we have love we don't need money."
There are people who live their lives in poverty and by necessity adopt such ideas as conventional wisdom. It is only one step further to placing social issues\morality above economics in priority.

These are sincere beliefs that can help a person find greater comfort with their daily lives. Politicians have discovered that tapping into it offers marginalized disaffected people an opportunity to place themselves in what they view as some sort of equal measure to policy makers. Caring about the same things is how people relate to each other. I will not ridicule people for this.

[eallen]

7. In a first-world nation, it makes sense that they would

However much we make of economic issues, the fact is that these matter much less in the US, which is the world's economic powerhouse, and where even our poor are well off compared to much of the world, than they do in a nation where the economy is less strong. For that reason, the economic issues that are argued tend to be small or moderate adjustments: Should welfare benefits be marginally higher, or last a bit longer? Should social security benefits start a year later? Should the upper tax rate be 35% or 38%? Even the economic issue that likely will have the greatest impact -- a move to single-payer medical insurance -- will be a moderate adjustment over the patchwork of existing programs (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) for public provision of medical care.

Obviously, these moderate changes can mean a lot for the individuals so affected. Which is why they are so much argued. But they will not change the warp and woof of our economy. Social issues, on the other hand, can swing widely without much affecting the economy as a whole. So issues like abortion, or past battles over suffrage, and temperance, can become central domestic issues, that change our society, while the economy plugs along.

Now, if the Socialist Workers Party were a national force, then economic issues would take on more importance. If there were the real threat, turning on the next election, that much of the economy would be nationalized, then everyone who realized how harmful this would be would band together in the Democratic Party or Republican Party, or whatever opposition party one wants to imagine in this counterfactual scenario, suppressing their differences on civil liberties and social issues, in order to take up a truly important economic question. Fortunately, that's not the case. The socialists here won't like that answer. Of course, the socialists are here in the Democratic Party precisely because socialism is so marginal in American politics.

:evilgrin:

[pat_k]

8. It isn't about "social issues" is is about blaming and demonizing people .

. . .It is about operating on belief v. knowledge (You'll find some thoughts on Belief People v. Knowledge People here.

Belief people adopt ideas from other people. The process of adopting ideas from other people rather than independent reasoning is at the core of being a belief person, so being people-focused is definitely associated with being a belief person. That is, belief people -- and therefore a vast majority of the right -- are focused on people, not ideas.

For the reactionary right, it is all about demonizing and blaming the "bad' people. People on the right often seem to be stuck at the Pre-Conventional stage of moral development -- i.e., Obedience and punishment orientation; Self-interest orientation. This tendency too is related to the tendency to focus on people rather than ideas.

When things go wrong, they don't look for systematic forces that could be changed to prevent the wrong, they look for wrong-doers to blame and punish. Such demonizing all too often goes hand and hand with the so-called "social issuee."

For example, instead of looking for systematic changes to prevent the exploitation of undocumented workers here, they focus on the perceived culprits -- the undocumented workers -- and say "send them home."

For folks who identify as Conservative, "social issues" trump everything else only when they have shifted into "Get 'em, Get 'em" mode -- and propagandists on the right have been VERY good at keeping these folks in "Get 'em, Get 'em" mode.

This tendency would also be activated if members of Congress demanded Impeachment, loud and clear. Something the Dems don't get is that if they went after Bush full bore, the Get 'em, Get 'em people would jump on board.

[PresidentWar]

9. Pure nonsense.

My evidence is....the long running domination of the GOP, who were swept into office by promises of TAX RELIEF.

The social arguments, say against abortion, gay marriage and what have you, came later and are still not the captain issue of that ship.

[eallen]

10. There is a problem with that interpretation....

That interpretation would have more factual basis, if we were talking about Ronald Reagan, who lowered the marginal tax rate from 60-something percent to 38%. It makes very little sense for the elections of this century. The marginal tax rate under Clinton was 39.6%. Dubya dropped it to 35%. I know a lot of people who hit the highest bracket, and only a few who think that that 3.6% difference on the last bracket makes a large difference, on which their political outlook turns. In order to turn it into a selling point, the Republicans have to weave a tale about how much economic difference is had made, or harp back to the Reagan era, and the threat that if the Democrats get back into office, they would raise rates back to what they were in mid-century. In short, the argument relies on a lot of handwaving. The debate over high marginal tax rates is over, not just here in the US, but also in Europe. When we get a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress in 2009, we might see marginal tax rates move up to 40%, but we're not going to see them move over 50%, much less up to 70%.

Of course, there is a difference between reality and perception, and perhaps Republicans were able to sell that story to some portion of the elctorate in the last few elections. Certainly, they keep it part of their rhetoric. But the social issues that have played such a large role in the last few elections are more than rhetorical. Bush's appointment of Roberts and Alito is a signficant loss to everyone concerned about civil liberty.