Posted on 10/17/2013 7:38:32 AM PDT by stonewall_jackson215
I would dispute that. You think Ben Carson or Allen West would have won?
Politics is about perceived self interest first and foremost.
The collapse continues apace. Keep preparing for the day when the balloon goes up. Martial law will follow.
There are millions and millions of low-information votes to be had in XX chromasomes and in increased cutaneous melanin content. When combined, the effect is supra-linear.
Actually, they'll throw gas on the fire to speed up the process. Those ferals hate this country.
You got something against renegades? :-)
Largest percentage of the black vote for President:
Barack Obama 95% vs John McCain in 2008
Lyndon Johnson 94% vs Barry Goldwater in 1964
Barack Obama 93% vs Mitt Romney in 2012
Al Gore 90% vs George W. Bush in 2000
Dwight Eisenhower got 39% of the black vote in 1956 and Richard Nixon got 32% in 1960.
In today’s society interest groups define tribes (or sub-tribes) and parties are the biggest tribes of them all.
And that’s not to say that skin color doesn’t embody a certain “self interest”, as in the case, for example, where there is widespread prejudice (positive or negative) toward people of that skin color. In that case it is a shared self interest that cause the people of a particular skin color to “stick together”. And in the case of blacks one could make a strong case for that. But not in the case of whites or for that matter, asians.
It is my firm belief that politics (ie self interest) trumps everything, including race, religion, national origin, language, etc. - even family.
Lonegan 2014!
The Maxim (all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial) is, of course, hyperbole used to focus thinking on the powerful force shaping American politics. I do not understand how it confounds the Maxim simply to turn it on its head and state the reverse. The point of the Maxim is to increase our understanding of politics and how it is made, the point of your quote above is to assert that politics is somehow independent, apart from and impervious ("trumps") to "race, religion, national origin language etc.-even family."
I think very few would accept that notion.
If what you mean is that a man's politics is determined at least partially by race, you're talking in circles. The whole issue is what determines politics.
That is a bottom-up discussion but if we were to talk to a professional he would ask the first question, what is the race of the subject? If he asks, "what is his precinct" he is really asking the same question. The professional makes his living doing top-down analysis by determining the factors which go into making an individual's political decision. Primary among those factors is race.
There are of course others, some of which you list. The Maxim as hyperbole is designed to restructure thinking rather than state a scientific theory repeatable and true in every application in every time and place.
My assertion that “politics trumps everything...” is predicated on the following:
1. the definition of politics
2. human nature
Politics: - When distilled down to it’s essence politics boils down to “self interest” in its broadest sense. Each one of us that feels an affinity for a political party does so because our world view (or values) coincides closest with that particular party. And since we believe it is in our self interest to promote our world view, we will then naturally support the political party that will help us achieve that.
Human nature - it is an undeniable fact that we humans are driven first and foremost by our needs, our pursuit of happiness (however we each individually define it), in other words our self-interest.
So me stating that politics trumps everything is simply restating that basic fact of human nature - i.e. that we are driven first and foremost by our self interests.
This is clearly demonstrated by the example that I gave of Ben Carson, Allen West and any other black conservative. If race trumped self interest then all blacks would gladly vote for Carson or West or any other black conservative, instead of say Hillary, or any other lily white liberal. But we all know that that is not the case.
In making his choice the voter will first look at whether a particular candidates is aligned with his interests regardless of race, but if he happens to be of the same race it’s a bonus, and for a voter that is on the fence (the undecided) that may be the deciding factor - the tie breaker.
Sometimes it may be weighted more heavily than that (more than a simple tie breaker), as was the case with Obama’s first election, when even some black conservatives probably voted for him, because in a way Obama’s achievement as a first black president provided a boost for their own self esteem - it elevated their own image, thus it served their self interest. Also because he was a blank slate, they could easily imagine him to be less radical than he turned out to be, thus they could convince themselves that their values and Obama’s were not as divergent as they turned out to be.
The second time around, once the chasm between their respective world views (values) had become apparent, I would bet anything that very few conservative blacks voted for Obama.
You might now ask, well, if race is not a determining factor in politics then why do 90% of the blacks vote democrat (of whatever color). If you analyze this issue using self-interest as the motivating force, then the question becomes, why do so many blacks see it that it is in their self interest to vote democrat. And if the answer to that is because democrats give them goodies, then you have to ask why doesn’t everyone else see that it is in their self interest to get goodies and thus also vote democrat. And if you keep peeling the onion by asking (and answering) more of these questions, you will likely end up in interesting (and possibly) uncomfortable places.
Some people think they're entitled to their own facts.
Some people think they're entitled to their own definitions.
To argue that politics = self-interest and then to argue that self-interest trumps the factors that most people assume go into making up self-interest (or politics) is to argue by tautology. Circular argument by definition.
I don’t see the circularity at all.
You see it because of your assumption, i.e. that being part of a racial group encompasses its member’s self interests and I disagree with that. Racial identity, as I mentioned in my previous post, may involve some self interest, but it is minor when compared to say financial needs/support, employment, respect, personal safety, etc. As far as I’m aware, these interests are not race based.
And again if your initial assertion was supported by reality (i.e. that all politics is ultimately racial), then Allen West would still be in congress. (They gerrymandered his district to purposefully include more blacks so he would lose!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.