Sidebar: What Have You Done *FOR ME* Lately?

Recently, the so-called liberal media is spotlighting a May 24 special election in a solidly “red” Republican district in New York: following the introduction of “RyanCare” and its drastic re-structure of Medicare (most liberals call it "the end of") a sudden “shift” occurred among the older, conservative voters. And now the district is in play.

Spelling's improved; thinking hasn't.

If the Tea Party candidate concedes to the Republican (which is doubtful), the Republicans would still own the district, but it appears it would not win by as much of a margin as in prior elections. The division between the Tea and Republican parties is causing some polls to show the Democrat in the lead, so it’s interesting to speculate as to what’s causing the shift.

My take on it: I once heard the Tea Party called the “Tax ‘Em All (but me)” party, and it made me chuckle. And that’s the thing about many of these Randian, self-interested "Republican" voters (I'm just calling them for what they are, even though they like to say they include Democrats:  come on!).  They want the government made smaller, they want taxes cut for them, but they don’t want to lose any government benefits for themselves, and when they do lose anything, when it hits them in their pocketbook, they go with their self-interest…which may mean voting for the Democrat. This could also be termed “wanting the best of both worlds”—not just tax ‘em all (but me) but cut benefits and services for everyone (but me).  Voting opportunistically, not ideologically.

I got mine...so screw you.

I noted in a previous post how, in my home state of Michigan, several quite noisy diehard retired Republican letter-to-the-editor writers suddenly went silent when new governor Rick Snyder put forth his proposal to solve Michigan’s budget crisis by taxing their pensions to the tune of 4.25%, which were previously exempt. Or some years ago, I recall meeting a new neighbor, who proudly told me he was a “staunch conservative” because “liberals were hypocrits” only to then inform me he was a pipefitter for General Motors: i.e., he was a member of the UAW, from which he derived Cadillac wages and benefits because of their hard fought collective bargaining efforts, took his dues to support 99% Democratic candidates, and put out a monthly publication to members like him that reads like a socialist manifesto.  So he must have seen no contradiction (read: hypocrisy) between working for a major union for much higher pay and benefits than he would get as a plumber (that's basically what a pipefitter is--Joe the Plumber would be envious) yet voting for a party that would bust his union given the opportunity...which raises the obvious question:  would he still vote for them if they did?

So we see that same type of shift here: the conservative “personal responsibility” mantra also entails personal risk. The risk is that in order to reduce government, you may personally lose certain  benefits , whether from the government or because of the government, or be taxed (by Republican vote) directly or indirectly, and part of “personal responsibility” is recognizing and preparing for that. Apparently “personal responsibility” doesn’t mean anything to some Republican tea partiers beyond a nice talking point.

Postscript (5/24/11):  The winner of the special election in New York's normally solidly Republican 26th District mentioned at the beginning of this post was indeed the Democrat, Kathy Hochul.  It should be noted that in 2010, the Republican winner, Chris Lee, garnered close to 74% of the vote.  What a difference six months makes--or, to use another "song", when it comes to privatizing Medicare, don't it make your red states blue.