Hacker News Reader

Comment by danjayh | Hacker News Reader

I find the typical stereotypes about conservative voters to be kind of amusing. I'm fairly young, and I have an BSCE, MSEE, and a very decent paying job doing tech work. I'm a libertarian and I vote conservative because they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government. Based on what I've seen in the media about people who tend conservative, I don't exist ... that or I'm actually either a buck-toothed uneducated redneck, a white nationalist, or a geriatric nursing home resident and somebody forgot to tell me :).

Also - regardless of how great their new system is, the old adage holds: "Garbage in, garbage out."

View on HN

Just devils advocate here, but could it be you're the minority of that demographic?

I'm libertarian, and vote all over the map, but likely lean more liberal. I know plenty of well educated, employed conservatives. But, a bulk of voters in Trump's corner are not you. It's like going to a Free Speech rally. Some people are likely there just for speech, but if Neo-Nazis show up, and cause a ruckus, they're the face of the movement. Same goes for Antifa and taking over other peaceful protests. So, I think the disenfranchised, middle of the country, uneducated, unemployed person is simply the face of the cause. Unfortunately, some people only see things at face value.

Maybe the phenomenon you describe would be weaker in U.S. politics if there were more political parties and less incentive for people to vote major-party. As it is, it seems like a lot of political journalism consists of different attempts at tea-leaf reading about which demographics were motivated to join which coalitions how, and whether the coalitions will shift, and how we would even know. I'm sure those phenomena also occur in other countries with a broader partisan landscape, but maybe they come with a smaller dose of speculation. :-)

This unfortunately doesn't work well in a "first past the post" voting system, as a more general party will typically overpower a split opposition.

That's definitely a main factor that's tended to reduce the appeal of third parties.

> [...] they at least usually claim to want to reduce the size and power of the federal government.

Why do you assume that's inherently a good thing?

Most things that the federal government wants to do these days (healthcare, education, food assistance, etc.) can be done just as effectively at the state level (and possibly at the county or city level). In general, if things are done at lower levels of government, people in a particular area get more of what they do want and less of what they don't (for example Californians could have super-high taxes and single-payer, and Texans could have no income tax and a totally unregulated healthcare market). When you start pushing lots things up to the federal level, you get a group of voters on one end of the country forcing people on the other end of the country to do things in ways that they'd rather not do them. Therefore, everyone generally walks away happier if their local governments are left to do as many things as they reasonably can, the state governments take on the next layer of somewhat 'bigger' tasks, and the federal government sticks to things that only it can do - national defense, regulation of interstate commerce, issuance of currency, international treaties, etc. Most of the 'extra' stuff that the federal government does these days is done under a twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, but wasn't actually intended to be the domain of the federal government by the founders, who had recently experienced similar problems in their relationship to England and wanted to avoid them within the USA. This is why the constitution is written the way it is.

EDIT: And if you're interested in learning about the constitution, I strongly recommend starting with Hillsdale College's free 'constitution minute' series ( https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/home ), and if you like that, trying out their free 'constitution 101' series ( https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule )

This would be great, if the states had comparable resources and economies, like they (mostly) did when the country was founded. But it hasn't been like that for a very long time, and there are benefits to having the wealthier states help the less wealthy states get some of these things done. That's only going to happen through federal coercion, because states won't volunteer their resources otherwise. (Except for special situations; TX and FL would be getting assistance now from the whole country even if the federal government wasn't involved.)

My impression is that the states who argue for small federal government, and for solving problems locally, seem to also prefer private sector solutions over government services (state and federal). So, the choice is not really between federal or state government, but between government and no government. And secondly, things like healthcare are expensive. Making it the sole responsibility of the states means that poor states will get poor healthcare. That is one reason all developed countries have some form of government provided or regulated healthcare system.

Fair enough.

But why would people need different healthcare based on different states? Or education? Or food? That never made sense to me.

Let's say 51% of the country was against abortion, but you live in a state where 100% of the people approve of abortion.

Now, why would people need different healthcare based on different states?

Not everyone agrees with your definition of what constitutes "need" as it relates to healthcare, education or food. And while populations are rarely if ever completely homogenous, it would be absurd to say there aren't significant cultural values that are largely shared based on geography.

Why aren't they already being done then?

Don't worry, it's more of a rhetorical question than one seeking an answer.

I've got a few answers anyway, if you're interested:

1) The federal government sucks up all of the money -- see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal,_State,_and_Local... . And that chart only encompasses income tax -- the overall federal tax rate is closer to 20% GDP. The average person in the US already works until April 24 each year just to pay taxes (if you were to take your all of your taxes and pay them at the beginning of the year). Higher income earners already work well over half the year to pay taxes.

2) People only want these things if somebody else is paying for it. 'Free' healthcare and college tuition seem a lot less 'free' if your property tax (or rent, if your don't own -- landlords still have to pay tax, after all) and/or state income tax suddenly jump by a large percentage to cover it. People are usually very happy to spend somebody else's money (the battle cry is "the rich", but the reality is more like "our children's"), but not their own. Local and state governments have less borrowing capacity than the feds and don't control the currency, so it's harder to obscure the true cost of these things.

3) A lot of people don't actually want them. Although large population centers (which hold a lot of sway at the federal level) tend to favor these things, much of the USA geographically does not. Massachusetts, for instance, already had something very similar to Obamacare (in fact, large parts of Obamacare were based on Massachusetts' "Romneycare" law), but it would have been a cold day in hell before a state like North Dakota passed something like that.

It sounds different if you say

"The average person works until April 24 to pay for things like schools, healthcare, rule of law, roads and trains, internet, etc...".

Which could still be true if taxes were levied at the state level, no?

depends which state you choose to live in, presumably

It's kind of like how liberals are all urban poor or coastal elites.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com