Ran across this thought provoking interview with a political scientist/author his basic premise: . I dont think this is at all universal, but it certainly does explain the political choices of a large % of the population. For me it explains the appeal of certain individuals. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...sm-shopping-ethan-porter-the-consumer-citizen
Politicians have certainly "leveraged" the advertising aspect of consumerism. As for delivering the advertised "goods".....
That's not a totally out there premise. I would agree that citizenship has degraded quote a bit to more of an Amazon wish list rather than real responsibilities. The recent election was a good example. The Democratic primaries were a contest to provide the most "stuff" for free. That's why I would prefer a more "Starship Troopers" Republic, in which citizenship (by which I mean the right to vote) should be restricted to those who have actually made some sort of sacrifice to the polity, like military service. The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not. -Robert Heinlein
Technically that political ideology already exists. It's called utilitarianism. Essentially what ever benefits the most people is the best course of action. That basically would guide his more detailed vision.
Makes sense to me. Usually the candidate with the most charisma wins. Or perhaps the most snazzy campaign slogan. Think about it, Reagan had charisma and knew how to use it, he won big over both Carter and Mondale. Bill Clinton was another charismatic candidate who won twice as was Obama. G.W. Bush didn't have that much charisma, he was more down home boy type of candidate. He also had the luxury of going against two statues. Neither Gore nor Kerry could be deemed charismatic. Carter when he beat Ford was another down home boy, Ford totally lacked any charismatic qualities. 2016 was obnoxious vs. aloof, elitist. Neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton fit into my idea of being charismatic. Obnoxious won then. But in 2020 obnoxious was back vs. bland, this time bland won out over obnoxious. But bland behaved as an adult vs. the obnoxious child.
The best possible outcomes differ from person to person along ideological lines. What one person sees as the best outcome may horrify the next person. The problem lies in what we are being told is best, and by whom.
I think a better way would be to have a rule - if you pay into the government vie taxes then you get the right to vote - if you paid $0 income tax into the federal government, but paid $100 into state government, then you can’t vote on federal level, but can vote on state level. This would result in all responsible, paying adults, being in charge of the governing as they have the most stake in governments actions. Populism, like free sh!t for everyone, wouldn’t fly in this scenario.
That's not a bad idea either. The key thing is selecting voters who have some vested interest in society, and that's one way to do it, and there are no doubt others. Meanwhile we are trying to incentivize dead people and people from other countries to vote.
so the very poor and the disabled are disenfranchised. But then again I suppose all those million/billionaires who dont pay taxes couldnt vote either. Maybe add that any corporation that doesnt pay taxes cant make political contributions, nor get subsidies.
Well, since they are physically dependent on others, it kind of makes sense. Fair enough. Fair enough.
If you are paying taxes then it isn't free sh!t. If you aren't paying taxes because you aren't working/can't work/hospitalized - the free sh!t is still available to you. But if you find enough loopholes to not pay tax, you don't get free sh!t.
Nature of humanity. And it only gets worse when you try to destroy the bonds if civic conscience that bind a country together.
Is the article in the OP a not too well-veiled dig on female voting patterns? Interesting. As other posters mention, the voting franchise is way too broad, and the reason citizens have a consumerist notion of citizenship is that they have been indoctrinated to see the government as a panacea gumball machine for more than 50 years. 1. No one who works for the government, is a recipient of a material government grant, recipient of material welfare (don't bother with the SS/medicare fallacy, those are forced pensions, not welfare), or the direct or indirect beneficiary of material government contracts should be allowed to vote in the applicable government's elections. 2. In an infantilization culture in which "childhood" has been extended into the mid 20s, those under 22-25 not in active military service (would you like to know more?) should not be allowed to vote. Want to vote younger? Enlist. 3. Those who have never paid a very modest hurdle level of non-sales taxes in their lifetime should not be able to vote until they cross that hurdle once in their lives. And just like that, any "consumerist" concerns about U.S. elections would instantly evaporate... together with the Democratic Party.
