Why are working people in Conn. voting for Lieber

[AlwaysAnarchy]

It has come to my attention that in the Connecticut Senate race, the pro war right wing Senator Joe Lieberman is actually winning support from blue collar working class areas. Do this I ask WHY?? I know how much we all love working people but why on earth would they vote for this guy?? Meanwhile anti war candidate Ned Lamont gets his votes from mostly white collart types, college students and intellectuals.

So what gives?? Any explanations??

[RedStruggle]

The Working class is more susceptible to hegemonic capitalist ideology. The Ruling class makes a conerted effort to prevent the class antagonism becoming the primary political concern of the proletariat (gaining class consciousness) by diverting their attention to false national, religous, and, in some cases, racial antagonisms which enable the capitalist class to maintain their privelaged position. The Bourgeois intelligensia has the education and insight required to recognize that the national antagonism (the war against Iraq) is dubious and only serves to further the interests of the capitalists in the accumulation of capital and the control of the masses.

[BreadBros]

Thats a bizarre way to frame the questions. A lot of us dont "love" the working class, a lot of us are members of the working class and we fight for our class interest.

Anyway, the phenomenon you describe isn't new and is probably much theorized over. Some of it likely has to do with "Stockholm syndrome" or sympathizing with your oppressor. A lot of people can't deal with their position within social hierarchy, so they begin to identify with the values of the societies leaders in order to get over their feelings of being lesser. They can also project their anger and resentment over the system onto society itself. Thats why a lot of blue-collar people tend to vote for anti-tax candidates, for anti-intellectual candidates, or for the more rightward of candidates (such as Lieberman in this case), etc. If you feel inadequate because of the system, its much more emotionally satisfying to side with the people who completely accept the system, if you side even with an opposition faction of the bourgeoisie (such as anti-war liberals) you still have the problem of putting yourself in a position against the dominant system, which is distressing for a lot of people.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:54 am
It has come to my attention that in the Connecticut Senate race, the pro war right wing Senator Joe Lieberman is actually winning support from blue collar working class areas. Do this I ask WHY?? I know how much we all love working people but why on earth would they vote for this guy?? Meanwhile anti war candidate Ned Lamont gets his votes from mostly white collart types, college students and intellectuals.

So what gives?? Any explanations??
As I understand it, Liebermann is quite strong in his "support" for organized labour and so perhaps that explains it.

However, let's remember the one clear fact about all American elections, most workers, minorities and poor people won't vote for any of them - which is quite understandable. This election will be won or lost on the basis of the votes of rich people, less rich rich people and the small minority of working people who can be bothered to vote.

[MiniOswald]

When you tell people as often as you can from as many outlets as you can that this war is a necessary and just war, which is helping protect you and your intrests, a whole lot of people will buy into it. Theres a lack of education about the issues such as the war given to the working class. Not only that but there is the horrible tendancy for partiotism to be spread in the working class, and the right wing has gotten considerably good at portraying opposition to the war as unpatriotic in america.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:24 pm
When you tell people as often as you can from as many outlets as you can that this war is a necessary and just war, which is helping protect you and your intrests, a whole lot of people will buy into it. Theres a lack of education about the issues such as the war given to the working class. Not only that but there is the horrible tendancy for partiotism to be spread in the working class, and the right wing has gotten considerably good at portraying opposition to the war as unpatriotic in america.
I agree. This sound the most correct to me man. It's a fucking shame that right wingers have used war and patrotism as shamefully and disgustingly as they have.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 10:54 pm
Meanwhile anti war candidate Ned Lamont gets his votes from mostly white collart types, college students and intellectuals.
One, are your facts even right? What's your source for claiming Lieberman has more workers' support, or is this an assumption?

Two, what are you talking about, antiwar candidate? Lamont's criticized Bush for not being aggressive enough towards Iran.

These candidates are both enemies of the working class. They are both imperialist, pro-war candidates. Those workers who vote - as YTKMX points out, most don't - are just picking the lesser evil.

"Which guy might screw us a little less than the other, this time"?

It's a tossup, in many ways. To conclude workers are reactionary because they chose a different lesser evil than you did.... (supposing that in fact, most did....)

Probably reflects a preconceived contempt for working people.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Dude, they ARE voting for Lieberman, it's true! All the labor unions have endorsed this guy, sad to say. Also I merely asked the question here WHY workers were voting for a right wing pro war candidate instead of an anti Iraq war one? I did not presume anyone was "reactionary" for doing so just wanted to know why.

And I Don't think the political parties are 100% the same: The Democrats for instance generally support higher minimum wage, isn't that good for working people? (Yes I know both are cappies, and need to be opposed. )

[LoneRed]

thats like asking why do the republicans even get any votes from the working class. It cant be answered in a simple thread on a message board. but it doesnt have to do hegemonic ideology, and its entrance into working class thought

[The Grey Blur]

but it doesnt have to do hegemonic ideology, and its entrance into working class thought
Clarify that?

This is a pretty clear cut case of the beurgeois hegemony ensuring workers support, albeit tacit/non-existent.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:46 pm
And I Don't think the political parties are 100% the same: The Democrats for instance generally support higher minimum wage, isn't that good for working people? (Yes I know both are cappies, and need to be opposed. )
Think of an interrogation cell where there are two cops, one playing Mr. Hard and one playing Mr. Soft. Mr. Hard comes in and roughs you up a little, yells at you, insists you're guilty, threatens to prosecute you to the fullest extent, etc. You don't admit to anything and Mr Hard leaves. Then another cop comes in playing Mr. Soft. He's nice to you, speaks to you on your level. He tells you he's fighting for truth and justice. You get comfortable with him because he sympathizes with you. He says if you tell the truth then he will take it easy on you and not let Mr. Hard touch you.

In bourgeois democracies the political roles of Mr. Hard and Mr. Soft and played by the parties of the left and the right. The worse the right behaves, the more attractive the left looks. This illusion is as dangerous in politics as it is in a police cell. When things get out of hand and provoke rebellion the democratic part will save capitalism by pretending to be socialist.

America is a country ruled by one party with two different factions, both pretending to represent different demographics, but in reality they are both serving the interests of the ruling class. In the end you will get fucked by both parties.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by FoB+November 05, 2006 02:55 am--> (FoB @ November 05, 2006 02:55 am)
[email protected] 04, 2006 05:46 pm
And I Don't think the political parties are 100% the same: The Democrats for instance generally support higher minimum wage, isn't that good for working people? (Yes I know both are cappies, and need to be opposed. )
Thing of an interrogation cell where there are two cops, one playing Mr. Hard and one playing Mr. Soft. Mr. Hard comes in and roughs you up a little, yells at you, insists you're guilty, threatens to prosecute you to the fullest extent, etc. You don't admit to anything and Mr Hard leaves. Then another cop comes in playing Mr. Soft. He's nice to you, speaks to you on your level. He tells you he's fighting for truth and justice. You get comfortable with him because he sympathizes with you. He says if you tell the truth then he will take it easy on you and not let Mr. Hard touch you.

In bourgeois democracies the political roles of Mr. Hard and Mr. Soft and played by the parties of the left and the right. The worse the right behaves, the more attractive the left looks. This illusion is as dangerous in politics as it is in a police cell. When things get out of hand and provoke rebellion the democratic part will save capitalism by pretending to be socialist.

America is a country ruled by one party with two different factions, both pretending to represent different demographics, but in reality they are both serving the interests of the ruling class. In the end you will get fucked by both parties. [/b]
Great analogy! :D

I think FoB hits the nail on the head here: both political parties, although differences do perist, especially pertaining to strategies and tactics, essentially share the same goal (the promotion of bourgeois values and imperialism) and serve the same master: the ruling class.

In any society, in any system, in any form of government you're always going to find a group of people who support the status quo and support political movements which are not in their interests; however, they are almost always a minority. Like in the US where most working people abstain from voting period and thus withhold their vote from all political parties.

[Alejandro C]

Well, the polls are in and Lieberman won. It was an interesting race because he lost the primary and then went off on his own and won. He had the support of a group of politicians in Washington. I've heard speculation that this group is trying to set up its own loyalty base aside from the two parties. It's unlikely but interesting to think about the possibility of a small third Washington/bourgeois/elite party coming up and running in small select races and winning. It could happen much easier than a grassroots third party coming up, and could be an interesting turn in strategy.
A 'real' third party could try this what I'd call the starbucks approach: instead of creating a nationwide party that runs a lot of races that its sure to lose, a party could start with just one race, put all of their money into it with a recognizable candidate and win. After this is secure they could set up shop close, and do the same thing with a concentrated focus. This would require more 'mainstream' (read: more bourgeois) candidates who already are recognized. But eventually, after it had a strong base it could start introducing its own candidates. Its an interesting thought at least. Seems like it would work better than the strategies that are currently being used by third parties, that miserably fail.

[Guerrilla22]

Its probaly a case of conservatives voting for Lieberman to keep Lamont out of office, since their candidate was pretty much unknown.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 04:46 pm
Dude, they ARE voting for Lieberman, it's true! All the labor unions have endorsed this guy, sad to say.
That's a different statement. That labor unions officially endorse him is different from most workers voting for him. - the endorsement will influence some workers' votes, but probably not most esp. given the low level of union membership.

The endorsement of union bureaucrats will not have anything to do with foreign policy. It may be based on "bread and butter" economic issues plus labor laws and so forth. Plus who is perceived as more electable, and they won't want Lieberman's seniority to be lost to the Democratic senate caucus. (Committee appointments.)


Also I merely asked the question here WHY workers were voting for a right wing pro war candidate instead of an anti Iraq war one?

Yeah, before you ask WHY something, you gotta know if it's true. Would you ask WHY the Sahara Desert gets 300 inches of rainfall a year?