At least every couple of years we're faced with the question of whether to vote for a Republican or Democrat. Each party throws out all sorts of issues and positions to try to convince us to vote their way, but most of that is just distraction and pandering designed to win us over despite our better judgement. The candidates look different and have different personalities, but deep underneath they're all politicians and you can't count on them for much except to follow one or maybe two basic political principles of their parties.
In the end all that it really comes down to is a very simple decision which can be summed up in a single question, and here it is - the ultimate political allegiance question:
If you were unemployed, which would you prefer:
A: To be given $300 right now in cash, no strings attached.
B: To work a hard 40 hour week and get paid $600.
Neither of these options comes with any promise of future payment or employment attached to it.
If you pick A then go ahead and vote Democrat until there's a Socialist party on the ballot. If you pick B then you might as well vote Republican even if you disagree with them on other issues, because that's where your interests lie when it really counts.
And if you find the question and the answers troubling or irritating or unsubtle, then be my guest in using this as an opportunity to think about your personal values and the values of the political party you owe allegiance to.
Dave
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Temple Stark
And what is your "thinking" being this wildly insightful question?
To me it speaks of complete ignorance of the real world. The phrase "working poor" keeps coming to mind.
And is this even worth a post? Think about what we've been rejecting recently. This falls below the standard being that there's absolutely no point to it.
2 - Dave Nalle
It's just an observation. I think it's insightful, but you clearly have a different viewpoint.
I'd suggest that rather than there being 'absolutely no point to it', it has a point you'd rather not think about, and IMO that justifies its existence right there.
Dave
3 - T A Dodger
that's where your interests lie when it really counts.
That's what really counts if you're a heterosexual male. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, and I know you don't support the social conservatice wing of the republican party, but I believe that in this post you're underestimating the impact of "conservative" social policy on the people that it affects.
As a woman, I'm terrified of having the government take control of my womb. If I were gay, I might be more concerned about what republican control would do to my chances of having a legally recognized family than about conservative economic policy.
4 - cloid
I actually see how this seemingly simple question could be taken as a deep and subtle metaphor.
cloid
5 - Dave Nalle
I hadn't considered that there might be gender issues related to the question. It seems to me that no matter how much issues like gay rights and abortions matter, ultimately it's this one issue which really does differentiate the attitudes of the right and the left. The rest of the stuff does seem rather like window dressing since so many promises are made and so few are delivered on.
Nice to see that you recognized that the question applies to the broader issue of economic policy as well as personal values, though TAD.
Dave
6 - Dave Nalle
>>I actually see how this seemingly simple question could be taken as a deep and subtle metaphor.<<
I might not go that far, but I think that it is certainly applicable to a number of different aspects of politics and life. The question is certainly not as simple as it appears.
Dave
7 - Al Barger
Yeah Temple, uh, that you don't LIKE the point of Nalle's post doesn't mean that there isn't one. I know you're a liberal and all, but you're not a moron. You're behaving in a distinctly truth-challenged way to pretend that there's "absolutely no point" to this post.
TA also has a legitimate point that there are more things that are important than economics. To pick a counter-example to compliment hers, there are a lot of voters with liberal economic beliefs that have recently voted Republican because they are more concerned with US having a forceful defense policy.
I know that if, God forbid, I were ever to vote Republican, it would be for defense issues rather than economics- cause I don't see even a little bit of difference between them there.
8 - Mark Saleski
there is absolutely a point to this.
it is this: conservatives get a warm 'n fuzzy feeling when wrapping themselves in easy-to-digest, oversimplifications of issues.
9 - Dave Nalle
If nothing else the post is moderately provocative, and it gets people to show their true colors. That's got value.
And Mark, everyone likes to oversimplify things. We've become a soundbyte culture.
Dave
10 - T A Dodger
The question is simple... but it's also misleading. It would probably be more accurate to ask:
If a person is unemployed should they
A) Get $300 a week for a certain period while they (probably / maybe) look for a job.
or
B) Get nothing while they (definitely) look for a job.
The question, as it is posed, suggests that, if you are unemployed, all you have to do is *decide* to work. I think most liberals would disagree with that assumption.
I also think the difference between mainstream economic liberals and conservatives is in how likely they believe it is that a person on government assistance is just gaming the system.
11 - Dave Nalle
You're making it too complex, TAD. I thought about doing that and it defeated the purpose. The idea is to keep it as abstract as possible and not confuse the question with any kind of real world scenario. It doesn't work if it isn't a pure hypothetical.
Though I have to say that what you read into it is enormously revealing. The question is like a mirror that reflects the soul of the reader.
Dave
12 - T A Dodger
I think the way you phrased the original question shows a lot about you.
By asking it the way you do, you force everyone into the Republican column, because no reasonable person would pick A, as long as a full time job is the other option.
I could just as easily have written the question as:
Would you rather an unemployed person:
A) Get $300 up front or
B) Get nothing
and that would have revealed me as the dirty pinko I so obviously am :-)
13 - Al Barger
I think Dave's off track here just in the premise of his question. It's built on some presumption that Republicans represent a more conservative or tight fisted economic approach.
THEY DON'T. Look at the budgets and the spending. Republicans have run Congress for ten years, and they're blowing more money than a Democrat ever DREAMT of.
Then we gave them a Republican president as well- and the drunken sailor spending rapidly picked up steam. Obviously, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but on the basis of the empirical evidence, he was absolutely tight fisted compared to Dubya.
In the point of actual practice, a desire for conservative economic policies is no reason AT ALL to support Republicans over Democrats at this point- certainly not at the national level.
14 - Dave Nalle
TAD, I guess I didn't make clear enough that a longer term full-time job isn't in the mix at all.
Al, in the same circumstances with a war and a recession to deal with, we have no reason to believe that the Demos wouldn't have spent even MORE on the things the Republicans have overspent on and every reason based on past performance to realistically expect that they would have spent enormously more.
Your comparison with Clinton is misleading, because he was president during an economic boom, which took all pressure off of him to actually cut spending, and he passed on what was actually a bloated budget into a period where the boom was over and the revenues coming in were not on the same scale he enjoyed.
Regardless of the current circumstances, I still trust the Republicans far more than the Democrats to be fiscally responsible.
Dave
15 - Al Barger
TA, this question of Dave's does look like an increasingly interesting Rorschach. As the question stands, I'm not sure how I would answer it. Just on the level of personal interest, the question is would you work all week for $300?
If it is would you rather scrape by on $300 a week living free, or work your ass off for another $300- that seems like it could go either way. Seems like you'd have to have children to support to justify the bother for the difference.
16 - Dave Nalle
For the record, this post was inspired by overhearing a discussion between two disc golf players who were comparing the merits of working for $17 an hour doing duct work to leeching off your wife and doing occasional part time work while smoking a lot of weed and playing lots of disc golf.
Dave
17 - Scott C. Smith
Since corporations are legally defined as people, and since so many of them take free government handouts, does that make them Democrats?
18 - T A Dodger
Al,
This is interesting. You're suggesting that unless a person really *needed* the extra money, they would probably pick A.
And in my comment #12, I said that it's just self evident that everyone (including myself) would pick B.
Yet you are much more conservative than I am...
19 - Dave Nalle
Excep that Democrats want to get rid of the idea that corporations should be treated more or less like people, so I think that means the partty has rejected them despite their efforts to qualify.
Dave
20 - Temple Stark
>>I think Dave's off track here just in the premise of his question
So you first trash me and then agree with me.
Nice.
It's just an out and out dumb question - and for once it's not necessarily because Dave is asking it because I've seen offspring variations of it all over the place - that paints one political party as lazy and the other as hard working.
There's just no way that is intellectually possible. And how does it, in fact, address so-called libertarians or people who don't vote at all.
I've never accepted money from the government for unemployment and I plan to keep it that way. And that's just me but there are many other isssues out there.
The insight is lacking, that's all.
21 - Temple Stark
comment 319 was way the hell out of the blue and doesn't relate to anythng posed in the post.
>>not confuse the question with any kind of real world scenario
Sorry, but most of actually live in the real world so it's kind of important to us and not confusing at all.
22 - Temple Stark
comment 319 would indeed be as described. But so is comment #19.
23 - T A Dodger
It was in response to number 17, which was also pretty random.
24 - Al Barger
No Temple, I was not agreeing with you. Dave had a point- I just disagreed with it.
25 - Temple Stark
Thanks TA. Indeed (Didn't kow it was a Democratic issue, however). Sorry Dave.
Al, I said the premise was wrong, in so many words. So did you. Sorry. It's called agreement.