Putting the “I” in Politics

How many people vote for what is best for the country (their perception) OVER what is best for them individually? I realize these are not mutually exclusive issues, and there can be a huge overlap, but not always. I like getting a few hundred dollars back in taxes because I have children—but what if there was a plan to revoke that and use the money in a way that didn’t really benefit me but I thought it was good for the country. Would I vote for the proposal? Is it necessarily less valid to vote for self-interest?

In this light, is it “bad” for a person to vote for a president because that president is of the same group membership? Is it bad for Mormons as a group to overwhelmingly vote for Mitt Romney? Is it bad for Evangelicals to vote for Huckabee? for Blacks to vote for Obama? for women to vote for Hillary? for cranky old men to vote…never mind.

I have heard/read much negativity toward the concept of voting for a candidate “just because” he/she is a __________. I’ve contributed to the negativity myself. But, on reflection, is it really a big deal? People have something to gain by having “one of their own” in power. Even if the policies are not directly beneficial to the group, there is something validating perhaps to see such a person on the top of the political food chain. If we had an openly-gay candidate, do you think he/she would get the gay vote? It would be hard to not see that happen—and hard to begrudge such voters of that too much.

Of course the opposite issue is in play—voting against someone because of their group membership. Some would never vote for a Mormon, a woman, a Black, a Homosexual…is that so wrong? I think in some cases it is more valid than in others. If you really believe that there is something inherent in that group membership that would be bad for the self and/or the country, then why not. If you really believe Mormonism is dangerous and should not be further validated by having a Mormon president, then is there really anything wrong with that incentive? We could debate the validity of that perception, but that’s not the point (of course, it would be refreshing if people would be honest about that being their motive if it were the case—but that won’t happen).

Voting because of race makes more sense for than it does against—it’s hard to think of a reason against that doesn’t seem bigoted, unless perhaps one might think a certain presidential race (yes, read it as a pun) may bring a negative and dangerous backlash from other nations of the world—but I can’t think of a real scenario where that’s plausible (I can think of people having reservations about an Arab as the president—but I’m not sure anyone could articulate a logical danger to it, except maybe danger to that president). With gender, certainly some women feel more validated by having a woman president, but compared to other groups, I would think that the resulting boost in group pride wouldn’t be as noticeable.

Yet, group membership can only take you so far. In Nevada, about 94% of the Mormons who participated in the Republican Caucus voted Romney. Would that have happened if Harry Reid (Democrat in Congress) were the presidential candidate? I seriously doubt it—nowhere near to that percentage any way. I have no problem with group membership being a major factor in one’s voting decision—and perhaps even the only factor. But, I think one must be cautious, because such a voting rationale could have a worse net effect for the individual and the country given the actual policies and competency of the given candidate.

DISCLAIMER: There are no hidden messages here meant to sway the voting of readers (except perhaps the “old man” reference but that was just meant in good fun) or to justify the eventual vote of this blogger, whatever that may be.