That’s the title of an article in Slate by their business columnist, the insightful Daniel Gross. But in this case, he just doesn’t get it.
In the article, he explores the the phenomenon of “Bushenfreude” where angry yuppies who’ve hugely benefited from President Bush’s tax cuts are funding angry, populist Democratic campaigns.
I’ve theorized that people who work in financial services and related fields have become so outraged and alienated by the incompetence, crass social conservatism, and repeated insults to the nation’s intelligence of the Bush-era Republican Party that they’re voting with their hearts and heads instead of their wallets.
This is a popular discussion – why would people vote against their own economic self-interest? And the answer is, they’re not.
The reality is that some people have a longer and broader view than others. As a result, they are poster fodder for deferred gratification, investing in themselves through long and expensive schooling and punishing work hours. There is a theory that the ability to delay gratification is an important component of emotional intelligence and success in life.
My contention is that these clever people are looking at the devastation of the last eight years (the erosion of the U.S. global reputation, the housing crisis, the financial meltdown, the moral corruption), and they realize that their way of life is at risk. And the shiny bauble of a few tax breaks is not worth the price.
Somewhere in the back country, in a 14,000-square-foot writer’s garret, an erstwhile hedge-fund manager is dictating a book proposal to his assistant, a former senior editor at Fortune who just took a buyout, that explains why many of the wealthy choose to vote for a Democrat, in plain violation of their economic self-interest. Working title: What’s the Matter With Greenwich?
Funny, but the answer is obvious.
Best, Bert
November 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I would be with you if these people were, say, funding the libertarian party.
They’re not. They’re funding the worst the left has to offer: angry, unserious, and totally disconnected from history. The remember nothing of the last time the had this kind of power (the 1970s).
In the last 6 months, I’ve really come to believe that politics is exactly the same as the student council. Students vote for student council president because of superficial things, not because they like the proposed policies of those running. Those hedge fund managers in Greenwich are similar.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Oh, and you don’t know jack about corroption. Chicago has corruption like you’ve never seen. Obama was right in the middle of all that, and didn’t say boo. He has a record of turning a blind eye to it.
And, you know, who was running Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? It wasn’t Republicans. Who did they give money to?
If Republicans are the problem, I don’t see how leftism is the solution.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Hi Buzz – Well, I think a lot people looked at the current state of the Republic party and decided there was a better alternative. We’ll see how the next four years play out, but I’ve gotta say, I’m very impressed so far.
That said, I feel certain that the Obama administation will be a lot more centrist than leftist, irritating many hard-core liberals.
b.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Actually, I hope the Obama administration is more innovative and forward thinking than the left, right, center labels imply. Going back to FDR doesn’t make any more sense than going back to Reagan. Been there, done that. That was then, this is now. Platitude of your choice here ( ).
I would expect hard-core liberals and hard-core conservatives to be irritated, they both make an art of it. However, because we mostly see things through the old lens people will probably call the new policies centrist.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
To Michael’s point, Obama has made it clear during the last week that he will focus on TALENT and not cronyism. The teams he’s in the process of assembling is phenomenal and they’ll come up with PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS as opposed to spewing ideology. I live in Virginia and we’ve done pretty well this decade (#1 for business, #1 best-managed state, #1 state for a student to receive a public education, etc) during the last 8+ years with moderate Democrats in office (Mark Warner and progeny).
Obama will spend more time trying to explain to liberals why he’s not pushing their kool-aid over the next 8 years than he will taking shots from moderate Republicans or independents. As for the far right of the GOP, they can stay on the island they’ve created for themselves, maybe it echos over there so that they can continue talking to themselves while thinking that someone might be actually listening.
On taxes: I’m fairly conservative on the topic but it certainly makes sense that those who have the most to lose (the wealthy) should pay the taxes that pay the policemen, firefighters and other public servants who protect their property. But to the extent that unfair taxes never get paid and the reality that the truly wealthy are best able to avoid taxes, it would be futile to try and overtax them. People forget that Reagan’s tax policies were photocopied from those that Andrew Mellon advocated during the earlier years of the 20th century and were based on the proposition that unfair taxes are never collected.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
You guys are essentially saying that Obama will be Clinton II.
If that is the case, I think that he will be re-elected by margins far greater than he was elected with.
Seeing how many Clinton guys he’s recruiting, it is certainly in the realm of possibility.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Obama won’t be Clinton II because the times are different, as well as the man. Clinton was holding the bridge against the right wing hordes. The country was tired of the Reagan-Bush I years but the right was still in ascendency. he also had a Democratic Congress that couldn’t manage to pass health care reform, then an anti-government Republican Congress that thought it would be fun to shut down the government and impeach him on general principles.
After the abysmal performance of Bush II and the Republican administration, including the various current crises, I think there’s a hunger for change. The economic, climate, Iraq situations demand new thinking. None of them can be solved by going back to old solutions. Obama’s challenge will be finding truly new ways of working.
Obama has also built the beginnings of a movement. He’s got 4 million contributors addresses, people who have an investment in his success. I expect to see them mobilized to push for his agenda. His campaign skills, oratory and thoughtfulness are a once a generation combination. A fair number of the new Congress owe their seats to his coattails.
If he’s successful, Buzz is right about his re-election.