The problem with analyzing this as "greed" is that I think this crowd -- to a first approximation, the Warren-voting crowd -- does really suffer from two sets of misconceptions.
One is they believe more people are with them than actually are -- often helped along by issue polling that will confess to your worldview if you torture it enoug…
The problem with analyzing this as "greed" is that I think this crowd -- to a first approximation, the Warren-voting crowd -- does really suffer from two sets of misconceptions.
One is they believe more people are with them than actually are -- often helped along by issue polling that will confess to your worldview if you torture it enough. (This is a reason I'm so obsessed with the poor quality of issue polling and interested in how we can better understand what voters actually want.) The other is they are paternalistic, and think they know what "marginalized" groups want better than voters in those groups actually do. (That is, these are the kinds of democrats most apt to make "What's the Matter With Kansas" type arguments).
As such, I believe most of these people are not actually greedy in the sense you describe -- they don't think they're prioritizing their own needs and desires over others. They think they are altruists, and they are often in fact voting in a way that does not maximize their own narrow financial self-interest.
So, I think the best way to improve decision-making among this group really is to show them they are misunderstanding, not to shame them for their lust for power, which they wouldn't even understand as a thing they have.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoroughly.
We are, I think, interacting with the word “greed” slightly differently. I would agree, theirs is not the Gordon Gecko-ish, rapacious greed that views the world as zero-sum (as in, they are not consciously putting themselves “ahead” of their constituents). I do also take your point on the issue-based polling.
However, I don’t think the willingness to dispense with others is a necessary condition for greediness; it can simply be indecent desire for something, power in this instance.
I guess what I’m saying: these people have a view of how the world should be, and have built a career out of advancing that worldview. They may very much view themselves as altruists, but they nonetheless acquire plenty of material wealth and influence along the way.
It’s very, very easy to believe what is good for oneself is good for other people. They would view their interests as being aligned with those they serve.
Lastly, I will be slightly more convinced of their “altruism” when the second-largest line item in BBB isn’t restoring their juiciest tax cuts:
Will all this said, our respective prescriptions are the same. Reasonably explaining another’s error is a good starting point, and shaming does little that isn’t counterproductive.
Makes sense. Interstingly, voting against their own financial interests is often said about Jews who are Dems (the majority of Jewish voters) as they support the redistribution of income policies Dems favor.
The problem with analyzing this as "greed" is that I think this crowd -- to a first approximation, the Warren-voting crowd -- does really suffer from two sets of misconceptions.
One is they believe more people are with them than actually are -- often helped along by issue polling that will confess to your worldview if you torture it enough. (This is a reason I'm so obsessed with the poor quality of issue polling and interested in how we can better understand what voters actually want.) The other is they are paternalistic, and think they know what "marginalized" groups want better than voters in those groups actually do. (That is, these are the kinds of democrats most apt to make "What's the Matter With Kansas" type arguments).
As such, I believe most of these people are not actually greedy in the sense you describe -- they don't think they're prioritizing their own needs and desires over others. They think they are altruists, and they are often in fact voting in a way that does not maximize their own narrow financial self-interest.
So, I think the best way to improve decision-making among this group really is to show them they are misunderstanding, not to shame them for their lust for power, which they wouldn't even understand as a thing they have.
Josh:
I appreciate you taking the time to reply so thoroughly.
We are, I think, interacting with the word “greed” slightly differently. I would agree, theirs is not the Gordon Gecko-ish, rapacious greed that views the world as zero-sum (as in, they are not consciously putting themselves “ahead” of their constituents). I do also take your point on the issue-based polling.
However, I don’t think the willingness to dispense with others is a necessary condition for greediness; it can simply be indecent desire for something, power in this instance.
I guess what I’m saying: these people have a view of how the world should be, and have built a career out of advancing that worldview. They may very much view themselves as altruists, but they nonetheless acquire plenty of material wealth and influence along the way.
It’s very, very easy to believe what is good for oneself is good for other people. They would view their interests as being aligned with those they serve.
Lastly, I will be slightly more convinced of their “altruism” when the second-largest line item in BBB isn’t restoring their juiciest tax cuts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/11/16/second-biggest-program-democrats-budget-gives-billions-rich/
Will all this said, our respective prescriptions are the same. Reasonably explaining another’s error is a good starting point, and shaming does little that isn’t counterproductive.
S
Makes sense. Interstingly, voting against their own financial interests is often said about Jews who are Dems (the majority of Jewish voters) as they support the redistribution of income policies Dems favor.