There's a phrase that we often use here and elsewhere where liberals congegrate and commiserate. It's an expression of exasperation at the apparent unwillingness of the average American to vote for the right side. We use it to console ourselves when we lose, to convince ourselves that everyone really is like us, they're just blinded from realizing it.
You've heard this phrase before, so I'll spare you the raft of examples:
voting against their own interests
Were it ethical to do so, I would demand that this phrase be banned from this site, and that all users of it be HR'ed to oblivion. But instead, I will make an argument that we shouldn't use it, because it's like heroin: It might make us feel good for a short while, but it's actually very destructive. It is useless, it is wrong, and it is counter-productive. I'll tell you why it's so terrible, right after the jump.
There are three reasons this phrase is useless, wrong, and counter-productive: It's presumptuous, it's ignorant, and it's off the mark.
The presumption should be obvious. I mean, you don't know these people, much less what their interests are. They might not be the same as yours, so when you say this, you're basically saying you know them better than they know themselves. And then we wonder why they call us elitist.
Now, I don't mean to castigate any members here who use this phrase. That's because this presumption is natural. Cognitive science has pretty much proven that most people assume that their experience/life/lifestyle is typical and normal. Thus, most of us assume that everyone else is pretty much like us. So of course, we must all have the same political interests. But look where this dangerous train of thought leads: My political interests lead me to vote liberal. Since everyone is like me, everyone's political interests should lead them to vote liberal. Since not everyone votes liberal, not everyone votes according to their interests... I hope you see how bad this is. You have no idea what a person's political motivations are. That's because even we have a lot of different motivations.
People have a lot of motivations for their politics besides the economy. Especially if they're doing fine. Even though millions of Americans are out of work, most of us are still securely employed. So most of us have the 'luxury' of thinking about something else. But even when times are tough, there are a lot of things that might motivate a person to vote a certain way: Culture, religion, racism, loyalty, or personal reasons.
Culture is a strong force. People want to be represented by someone like them. The Founding Fathers figured being from the same state or district was enough of a likeness, so that's what they wrote in the Constitution. Boy, if they could see us now! I mean, if you're a Baptist Wyoming rancher, you'd rather have a Baptist Wyoming rancher running your state. You can trust someone like you to understand your interests and represent them well.
Note that it isn't just conservatives who are like this. We are, too. If you're an atheist urban Bostonian with young children, who uses the T to get around, who would you trust with power first: Someone like you, or a practicing Catholic suburbanite who drives their minivan to go to the corner store? If you don't have time to understand all the candidates' positions, culture is a helpful shorthand.
Religion speaks for itself. And racism, too. But these are often more cultural in nature than anything else: People want to be represented by someone like them.
And sometimes, the motivation is purely personal. Maybe they're against clean energy because their brother works at a coal-fired power plant. Maybe they support concealed carry laws because they got mugged once. Maybe they're against Obama 'cause their ex is strongly for him. Who knows? You certainly don't, so don't use phrases that make it sound like you do. Personal interests are very powerful, and we can't know where they will lead a person.
Third, this phrase is wrong. It's off the mark. It is even delusional... because it reflects the classic liberal mistake of assuming that our positions are the natural result of applying reason. I've been talking about a lot of political motivations. Oftentimes, we liberals dismiss these as irrational. Valueless. In doing so, we elevate reason above them, as if political values are more valid because they're somehow logically derived. But we shouldn't do this. Reason is overrated in politics. Even for us liberals. Most of our motivations are moral in nature, not reason-based. I mean, think about your positions, and think about their moral basis. Liberals believe in the moral virtues of equality, sustainability, and social inclusion, and these underpin nearly everything we stand for. Civil rights? Fair pay? Equality. Renewable energy? Organic produce? Sustainability. Unions? Welfare? Inclusion.
Contrast our morals with the conservative 'virtues' of hierarchy, exclusion, and self-centeredness. Why do conservatives bust unions? So bosses can lord over their employees like the petty princes of old. That's hierarchy. Why do conservatives reinforce straight-only marriage? To keep 'those people' from enjoying the fruits of their love for each other. Exclusion. Why do conservatives like lower taxes? They say it's so they can keep more of the money they earn. Self-centeredness. I don't mean self-centered in the "I got mine so fuck all y'all" sense, but in the Tragedy of the Commons sense: They miss the big picture. If everyone takes from society but doesn't give back, the society crumbles, and everyone will lose out in the end. But according to their morals, it's better to focus on the small picture, and in the small picture, they're doing alright... best to leave others to their fate.
Morals trump reason every time. That's why we don't make headway with facts and figures. That's not to say there's no place for reason in politics. But reason's what you use when you already agree on the morals. If two liberals are debating a high-speed rail system, they already agree on the sustainability part. They're just figuring out which way is the best to implement it. In a case like that, the facts are relevant. But a conservative doesn't care about sustainability, so all the facts in the world won't make a lick of difference--- they don't see the point in the HSR to begin with. What's more, they are suspicious of it, because it reflects a moral viewpoint that is worse than theirs (hierarchy) and which should be kept out of the public debate (exclusion).
I should point out that moral values aren't reasonable, in the sense that we generally don't pick and choose them. There is nothing that makes equality inherently more moral than hierarchy: that's just what emerged with the Enlightenment, and it's what we believe. We can rationalize our morals post hoc, but that's a philosophic luxury we should dispense with when dealing with politics.
Before you jump to the comment section: I don't mean to say that it's hopeless to try to convert conservatives. Most people are part conservative, part liberal. We have to appeal to people's liberal sides, and lead them to embrace the values they share with us. Then and only then will they share our interests. Then and only then can we bring reason to close the deal.
To close, let me sum up: A phrase like voting against their own interests should not be used, because nobody votes against their own interests. A person's interests are numerous, complex, and sometimes contradictory. They're based on that person's moral outlook, culture, and personal experience. We have to try to understand what motivates our conservative fellow citizens if we want to undo it. We can't presume to know what makes a person tick, but this phrase says otherwise. Using this phrase is essentially a way of affixing a huge, blinking neon sign on your head that says you're a mind-reading know-it-all. Who wants to listen to that guy?
So let's stop saying it.