The article was interesting, and seems to back up something I've always believed which is that it's not about ideas...it's about marketing. The GOP have done wonders by marketing themselves as tough, which fits very well into our American image. So they talk responsibility and self-reliance, which raise to mind the cowboy imagery so ingrained in us. We all like the idea of our independence. Dems/liberals really need to work on that. As much as they mocked Bush's "Dead or Alive" stuff, they must have missed how well it worked with many people. They need to make responsibility not about the individual's responsibility to him/herself, or the state's responsibility to all people, but about the individual's responsibility to those who are weaker in some way. After all, that same independent cowboy wouldn't be so beloved if he simply rode away while the village was beset by bandits, murders, and savages (erm...movie speak, not my opinion of Native Americans). Let's face it...if you work the line at a factory you're probably a tough guy. The GOP has a monopoly on tough guy politics, and marketing counts.
Think of it this way: Applebee's has the worst fucking good known to man, yet good little mom n' pop places go out of business while that shithole sets up shop in every town in the country. It's certainly not because their food is better. It's because they can afford to market themselves and do so endlessly. Their commercials focus on things people like: local values, saving money, and fun. Now, you can't possibly tell me that Applebee's better supports local values than a diner with no corporate franchise, or that the value is any different than anywhere else, but they sell it and people buy it. This, then, demonstrates why we'll likely die out as a species in the next 15 or so years.
Marketing is very important in selling products or ideology. Although if more people want the Applebees experience than the local greasy spoon then that's the breaks. Happens with everything. Barnes and Noble moves in, local bookstores go under. eReaders come out, B&N goes under, or at least the brick and mortar parts. Same as with Blockbuster, local video renters and Netflix. Crazy Henry Ford's horseless contraption moves in, buggy whip manufacturers go under.
Sounds like the libertarian party...how've they done lately?
Truthfully, I think that would go over well with most people. While I have my liberal tendencies, there are many aspects of government that I'd be ok getting rid of or relegating to the states. And of course the morality codes nonsense that the GOP seems enamored with lately, which is often bigoted and likely unconstitutional, should go the way of the dodo.
But, in reality, the two major parties have such a grip on power that it'll be hard to oust either one without something major. Hell, Bush lied us into a war that became incredibly unpopular and cost us thousands of lives and here we are about to re-elect Republican majorities. The two parties combined control our election system. Note that the FEC isn't non-partisan...it's BI-partisan. It goes without saying that no third parties are represented. How can they possibly compete when the two major parties control all the strings of power and set up enormous obstacles to third party competition?
I think it would have to be a breakaway faction from one of the two parties. Sort of like the Tea Party but if they were more libertarian and less fringe-y in places.
I also grow tired of the whole "voting against their interests" trope. It seems counter intuitive. People vote theri best interests how they see things. A third party observer disagreeing with them seems a bit presumptuous.
I agree that we each define our interests (as would a person who strongly believes in rational choice decision making) according the value we internally apply to those things. I think what most mean when they say "against their own interests" is economic interests.
I know that economics is generally what people mean when saying others are voting against their interests, but my criticism is still the same. It is the observers opinion that how another voter is voting "against their interests" and is mostly a rationalization employed when people don't vote the way the observer would like.
