Interest of those who agree and disagree with Obama: Money

Poor people are usually democrats, because they think they will get more money from the government if they support democrats.

Rich people tend to be republicans, because they think they will keep more money if they support other republicans.

It has nothing to do with what system people thinks works best, or what type of government works best. It usually has all to do with self interest or greed.

Obama openly promised that he would raise taxes on the very rich and give more to the “middle class”. On video tape he said he would "spread the wealth around".

Self interest is a bad motivation, because if everyone only acted on self interest, bad things would happen.

We need people to act out of what they think will be best for their grandchildren.

Republicans would say that Rich people don't want to keep more of their money, they think that this is the cart before the horse. Republicans will say that people who are self reliant, and don't want anything from the government, will become rich. Republicans will say that they would not want anything from the government even if they were poor, and that their rugged individualism would cause them to eventually become rich, or if they were able to pass their self reliance onto their children, that their children would become rich.

Some wealthy people are democrats, and believe that they and other wealthy people should pay more taxes. But the great majority of Rich people are republicans, and the great majority of poor people are democrats. This means most people are acting out of self interest, which is to be expected.

Political Laziness and Issue-Crossover

This is republicans disagreeing with Obama because he is a Democrat, even when he is doing conservative things.

This is democrats defending Obama, even if they would have attacked Bush for doing the same thing.

The cause is political laziness and the result is issue crossover. 

Issue crossover is when you agree with Obama on one thing, and so you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt on other issues. This is only natural, but it can lead to bad policy. 

It is like giving Hitler the benefit of the doubt on his policy towards invading his neighbors, because you like his progressive environmental policy (OK you idiots; I am not comparing Hitler to Obama. I am using a good logical debating technique of proving a point with an extreme case). 

This means that democrats and republicans need to work with each other when they agree, because the other side has to be right some of the time, no matter how bad they are. And this also requires democrats and republicans to oppose people from their same party, because this will result in policy based on thought and logic, instead of whether or not you like the person in power.

Not being politically lazy means you have to think about each issue, instead of republicans who don't like Obama for one thing he did, crossing over that distaste for Obama's decision, to another issue.

Interest of those who agree: Liberal guilt (environment)

When I say that someone is motivated by liberal guilt towards the environment, I mean it as a bad thing. I'm talking about the guilt that knows we have been bad to the environment in the past, and assumes that everything that we do to alter the environment is going to harm it. It assumes it is impossible for mankind to help the environment, even if evidence contrary to their guilt, suggest that an action might increase biodiversity, or the quantity of animal or plant life.

Probable Interest of those who disagree: Party Affiliation Group-ism

This is typified by people who attack people from the other party for doing something, but defend someone from their own party for doing the same thing. It often comes down to making excuses for people that you agree with 90% of the time. It is OK to not agree with everything someone has said or done, but still support them. But at some point you are a total idiot if you make a big deal supporting something, but then opposing it when the other party comes into office.

To the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, than it is fine to only support republicans, and appose democrats. However if you make arguments against a an action when it is the other guys in the white house, but support the president's right to take that action when they are in power, than this type of motivation will not lead to good policies.

It is the double standard, hypocrisy, or changing standards that have you defend the person when he or she is from the other party.

There are many examples of Party Affiliation Groupism that overrides issues people say they care about. Below are some examples:

Issue that is ignored: saying you want a color blind society, that does not discriminate between background, or group membership, but just votes for the best person. Examples include:

1. Not liking all the racial targeting all the African Americans voting for Obama, but being OK with all the evangelicals supporting Huckabee, or visa-versa.

Issue that is ignored: saying you care about the family values of moral fidelity, but getting madder at people from the other party are unfaithful. Examples include:

1. Republicans who freaked out over Bill Clinton's sex scandal, but defended Mark Sanford, or visa-versa.


2. Feminist who defending Bill Clinton's sex scandals but freaked out with the Duke polo team sex scandal.


3. Liberals who assumed Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas but said Lewinsky's allegations were all part of a "right wing conspiracy",

Issue that is ignored: saying you care the advancement of a minorities power in society but letting your other political interest causing you to only advance minorities from your party. Examples include:

1. Feminist who got all excited about Hillary Clinton, but didn't care at all about Condoleezza Rice (saying your are for women's advancment, but only women who agree with you. They would say that they don't think Condolezza is really advancing women's interest, but I think it has more to do with people liking people from their group, and assuming the worst from people from the other group).

Interest of those who agree : Liberal guilt (race)

Liberal guilt: Race:

People should not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society. 

Guilt is good. People that ignore their conscience are monsters.

Politics is not always about fighting for the best policy. Sometimes people look at political office as a form of approval, and voting for someone or appointing someone is a way to right a past wrong. Cynical people might appoint someone who check's all the right boxes, and they use liberal guilt as a way of daring their opponents to oppose their appointee.

In a perfect world, I think all these side issues would be brushed away. Politics would be more focused on good policy, instead of personalities. Minority groups would represent more than just their percentage of the population, as olive branches to their communities, and international bragging rights, but people would not be controlled by their guilt into supporting candidates or policies that end up hurting society.

American has been guilty of racism.

Because of this some defending a minority, Obama, because he is a minority.

See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side. Liberal guilt feels like a good motivation. It is motivated out of shame.

Have very many bad things been done out of guilt or shame? I don't think as many bad things out of guilt as have been done out of hatred.

However if we agree with minorities, because they are minorities, without making sure we actually agree with them, than we are setting them up for failure, because we will allow them to make decisions that are uninformed by a lively debate. Perhaps this is not a big deal now.

I think it was a big deal during the primaries, but the media is no longer pulling their punches.

Guilt is not a good motivation, but it is not very bad, and can probably be forgiven, except in very important decisions. Perhaps it shouldn't even be brought up as a motivation of some people, because just talking about it can be seen as racist, or can be used by others to justify racism. However I want this to be a site that tries to address the motivation of those who agree and disagree with Obama. Please help me do this in a more intelligent way, so that we expose both sides, so they have to deal with their true motivations.

Interest of those who disagree: Racism

For the interest of this blog, this includes people who oppose Obama because of his race. This can be people who do it consciously, hard core racist, and subconscious.

Also, in terms of advancing the best policy from a color-blind policy argument standpoint, it is also less confusing when side issues such as race come into the picture. For instance you might tell people to vote independent of race and background, encouraging even minorities to to support people based on their policy not their race. However, it might not be as big of a deal with minorities because by definition minorities are less likely to monopolize policy in a republic, unless everyone thinks of themselves as a minority, and each minority group is not interested in the general advancement, but only their minority group's advancement.

See Racism and Liberal guilt as motivations on each side.

Racism is alive and ugly. It is often silent, and even unconscious. It would lead to people opposing Obama even when they might otherwise agree with him. Or if they already disagree with him, letting it get them more upset about disagreeing with him.

Bush derangement syndrome took hold because a lot of people don’t like Jocks. A lot of people don’t like privileged children of wealthy oil men, like Bush. People have interest that motivate them to oppose people like Bush, and everyone should make sure they are not getting any more upset at Obama than they would have got at Bill Clinton, All Gore, and John Carry.

However people like Keith Oberman should stop calling everyone who disagrees with Obama racist. It makes their side look stupid, and provides cover for real racist. There were stupid white people carrying stupid signs in stupid crowds, when Clinton was in office also.

Probable Interest of those who agree: Party Affiliation Group-ism

If they are a democrat, defending a fellow democrat. Or if they share other characteristics with Obama (race, career, home town, home state, religion, background, etc) they would identify with these (to the degree you agree with every single thing in your parties political platform, this is acceptable, but to the degree that it is a mindless rooting for the home team, party affiliation is a motivation that will not help us make better decisions.