If you feel you can afford to vote against your own interests, presuming you work for a living, and for those of the ultra-wealthy, go for it. It's my thesis that with our ever-shrinking share of this nation's wealth and an ever-shrinking share of this nation's income, the working class can no longer afford to work in favor of policies that demonstrably support the interests of the wealthy and powerful few at the cost of the rest of us.The idea that if you are not rich, you can't support free market policies is ****ing stupid.
Let me add that "free market" is a BS catchphrase representing a reality of corporate subsidies, single-source contracts and tax-free earnings. It's an extremely misleading phrase in terms of its real-world applications.
Isn't the mantra that a rising tide lifts all boats? If 2/3 of that tide is spent lifting 1% of the boats sky high while the rest remain nearly static, is that saying still true? I don't live to serve the interests of that 1% at the cost of the rest of us, and I think it's a bad idea if others do.If the economy is going strong, those at the top are going to be doing very well. The last 30 years have seen some pretty good economic times. (until recently of course) Not too surprising that those at the very top would take advantage of that. I just don't see how that harms me in any way.
Sure, I get a smaller piece. But I am not going to complain about getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie.
Let me put it another way. In free market speak, what have the ultra-wealthy done over the past three decades that increased our GDP so massively? Were they responsible for 2/3 of the growth, and thus deserve 2/3 of the rewards? Or did they unfairly game the system, perverting the free market by manipulating our tax code, our regulations, and our political system in order to claim more than their fair share? Every multi-millionaire former Congressman who is now a lobbyist is a tic in the column voting for the latter. Every multi-millionaire former General who now works for a defense contractor lobbying his former aides is a tic in the latter column.
Finally let me add for clarity that no one party is responsible for the state we're in. Both of the major parties contributed mightily to this situation, and we're structurally incapable off introducing a lasting third party (without replacing one of the original two).