[lbo-talk] Tea Party: less than meets the eye

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 6 10:21:35 PDT 2010


As far as I can tell, there was enough minority participation to secure Democratic victories in places like DC, Baltimore, or Detroit. If you look at the electoral map http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/ at sub-state level, you will see that places with heavy minority concentration went heavily democratic. It is the ex-urban or rural areas that went republican.

So from that point of view, I do not see much evidence of the supposed dissatisfaction of liberals who voted for Obama. Some were dissatisfied, to be sure, but I do not think it made enough difference on the national level to sway the election results.

Most people do not adhere to any coherent political philosophy or ideology, their understanding of the macroeconomics, market forces, and the role of government in the economy is practically nil. They tend to attribute the state economy to the political party in power, a view that is reinforced by the political discourse and partisan propaganda. So if things go right, they vote for the party in power, if things go wrong - they vote for challengers.

In other words, if they face bad luck, they sacrifice a chicken, and if that does not "work" they sacrifice a goat, and their luck still does not change, they start sacrificing some of their own. It s not the purpose rationality that Weber described, by the magic rationality described by Bronislaw Malinowski. According to Malinowski, if people do not understand causal mechanisms behind phenomena (such as weather change), they turn into magic to gain symbolic "control" over something beyond their factual knowledge.

That is, they are using rituals to get peace of mind in situations they cannot control or understand. Voting is one of such rituals and it is as "rational" as sacrificing a chicken to avert bad luck.

I am reasonably certain that had the economy visibly improved, democrats would have maintained their majorities, Mr. Obama notwithstanding.

Wojtek

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:


> On the one hand, its been three days so most of us are speculating.
> On the other hand, the material Marv's pointed to represents some empirical
> evidence w/r/t youth as does the desperate efforts Dems made to bring out
> their usual blocs - seein' as how it was pretty clear they weren't gonna
> come out. Like Marv, I'd be surprised if - like the reduced participation
> of youth who lean Dem who voted for the excitement of Obama - there was
> also
> reduced participation from historically oppressed minorities.
> It is surely possible that some voters, perhaps swing independents and some
> union members most specifically, sought to punish the party in power but it
> strikes me a weird that anyone excited or hopeful about Obama would see
> anything in Reps, much less TPers... but then again I'm not a member of
> these groups.
> I can say, anecdotally, that reading the comments pages on HuffPo, MoveOn,
> the NYT and beyond - as well as exchanging notes with mainstream Dems I
> grew
> up with and went to college and grad school with - mainstream Dems are not
> pumped about Obama.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan: "Obama's campaign energized a base and drew the
> > middle/swing/independent
> > voters in 2008. His Presidency has disappointed the base, middle, swing
> > and
> > independents who voted for him and has passively fostered bipartisan"
> >
> > [WS:] Do you have any empirical evidence of this, as opposed to the
> > alternative hypothesis: that voters wanted to "punish" the party in power
> > by
> > voting for a challenger? The latter only assumes that if things are
> going
> > south, the electorate will vote against the party in power - which is
> > "received wisdom" in policy analysis - the former requires an additional
> > assumptions about political preferences of the electorate, which requires
> > empirical proof. Can you cite any?
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think any of my arguments necessitate an untapped reservoir of
> > > potentially left-leaning voters.
> > > If I was unclear, just about everything I've written is rooted in only
> > > thinking abotut who votes, who votes for D, for R, for a TP or not at
> > all,
> > > and when... with only slight variations in the content of the
> population
> > of
> > > voters.
> > > Obama's campaign energized a base and drew the middle/swing/independent
> > > voters in 2008. His Presidency has disappointed the base, middle,
> swing
> > > and
> > > independents who voted for him and has passively fostered bipartisan
> > > obstructionism, dissembling Repug pundits and media, and libertarian
> > and/or
> > > racist Tea Partiers. This energizes the opposition and depresses
> > > proponents
> > > indpendent of what the 50-60% of eligible non-voters think.
> > > Who cares if Obama's done a lot of press conferences, the press
> > conferences
> > > are uninteresting, they don't have a clear message and he doesn't come
> > off
> > > as a man on a mission in them.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 5, 2010, at 10:16 PM, Somebody Somebody wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Shane: How stupid can you get? The Dumbos were trashed be their
> 2008
> > > > voters by *not voting*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Somebody: Both you and Alan seem to subscribe to the view that
> > there's
> > > a
> > > > vast reserve army of nonvoters silently waiting to be mobilized by a
> > true
> > > > left-wing leader. I wish that this were true, but I prefer to stick
> to
> > > the
> > > > empirical data rather than to what's ideologically comfortable.
> > > >
> > > > This year's voters were whiter, righter, and older than the last
> crop,
> > > > there's no doubt about that. I agree about the untapped reservoir's
> > > > essential nonexistence though.
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *********************************************************
> > > Alan P. Rudy
> > > Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> > > Central Michigan University
> > > 124 Anspach Hall
> > > Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> > > 517-881-6319
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list