Why We Vote Against Our Interests

And what politicians might do to help us stop.

Quite a bit of work has been undertaken recently on why people often vote against their own interests. This kind of research and analysis will of course often betray some political bias, some assumptions about what is "really" in the interests of the poor, say, as opposed to what the poor themselves think. In fact, some of the work was driven by frustrated Democrats trying to understand why those whom they were trying to help were not voting for them. In any case, this now growing body of thought seeks to explain why those who should most want change often vote for ideological parties that defend the status quo or more accurately, in English speaking democracies, parties that trust to the markets and tradition, even if neither has been very kind to many of us. No wonder progressives and pragmatists of the "radical centre" are frustrated.

Indeed, so powerful have been the right-wing messages that we now see centrists and so-called progressives competing to demonstrate who are the true fiscal conservatives, the real cutters of government and taxes, the most aggressive on security. And even that doesn't seem to be working. The issue is not simply the growing distrust of government, though that's important, or even small government versus big government (witness, for instance, the abysmal fiscal performance of most conservative governments).

So what can the research and analysis tell us? Part of the answer lies in the techniques adopted by ideological parties to fuel and pander to our worst fears and to close off the sources of evidence and knowledge that challenge their ideology. Part of the answer lies in the failure of reformers to find a narrative that fits the time. Part of the answer lies in changes in political culture. Here are a few of the lessons I take from the research.

1) We are all of us vulnerable to fear in changing times

Parties that see government's overriding or only role as security increasingly pander to our fears and our anxieties about change at home and in the world, and portray themselves as our protectors, the firm hand, the strict parent. And it works: fear trumps many other emotions and can blot out evidence and appeals for moderation. Appealing to fear is a faux populism that seeks advantage in our frailties and turns them against us. But ignoring our fears is not an answer. Little wonder that progressives are reluctant to take this on – who wants to be seen as soft or weak or naive about the threats. But before they can do anything, before they can be heard, they have to counter the culture of fear rather than pander to it. If progressives join in the pandering, they are lost. Of course, this is far from easy. On some days it's near impossible because sometimes bad things happen. This week some suspected terrorists were arrested right here in Canada, again. No one can guarantee absolute security – no one. And our vulnerability to fear is perhaps also a reflection of a deeper anxiety about a world increasingly unfamiliar and out of our control.

But progressives and centrists must take the issue on: they need to be realistic about the threats and measured in their responses, opting for prudence over paranoia, even when it's hard; they will have to explode the myths that needlessly and dangerously intensify our fears; and they will need to explain the costs of over-reaction not only financially, but to our rights and freedoms, to our openness, to our international relations, and to the kind of country we are and are seen to be. They will also have to address our deeper anxieties and show how government can be important in helping us to manage the changes over which we have no control. Making us afraid of the future is not the way.