Voter's Remorse
27/06/16 05:24
I’m familiar with the term “buyer’s remorse.” I’ve experienced it on several occasions. The anticipation of having something new can sometimes cloud one’s judgment and after the purchase is made, you wonder whether or not you made the right decision. After all, there are many things I have purchased that in retrospect, I have discovered that I didn’t really need. Not every product lives up to the descriptions made by advertisers. I have been surprised by the details I didn’t notice when I was shopping that seem so apparent after the purchase has been made.
There are some in Great Britain who are experiencing a similar phenomenon. I guess you could call it voter’s remorse. On talk shows across Britain this past weekend, leaders of the “leave” movement were backing off of the promises made during the campaign.
One of the promises of the campaign was that the money that Britain sent to the European Union would be invested in Britain’s National Health Service. The leave campaign had a big red bus with “We send the EU £350 million, let’s fund our NHS instead.” painted on the outside. However, Nigel Farage, one of the leading voices calling for Britain’s exit from the European Union, appeared on “Good Morning Britain” and called that promise a “mistake.” It appears that the £350 million won’t be going to fund the NHS. Ian Duncan Smith, another “leave” campaigner, said on “The Andrew Marr Show” that the figure itself was an “extrapolation” and that the campaign had never said all the money would go to the NHS, despite the advertisements and big bus.
It appears that the anti-immigration sentiment of the campaign might not find much traction in the real world now that the vote has taken place. “Leave” campaigner Nigel Evans was interviewed on BBC Radio 5. The interviewer asked about the mechanism to decrease immigration now that the vote had taken place . Evans refused to confirm that there would be a decrease in immigration. He said that there is a difference between “controlling” immigration and having actual numbers of immigrants decline.
Britain has experienced some very tough economic times and some of its citizens are experiencing poverty that isn’t easily abated. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw mass layoffs in many industries in Britain and in the decades that have followed the poverty has become entrenched. Those people living in poverty were among the most ardent supporters of the “leave” campaign. They were desperate for change but the promises of great cost savings and a decrease in immigration that would result in more jobs for British citizens, seem now to be far from being fulfilled as Britain tries to figure out how to govern its widely divided population. With leaders of the campaign backing off from the promises made during the campaign and great uncertainty about how to accomplish the departure from the EU, it is beginning to appear that the promises will be the first things to be left behind and the conditions of Britain’s most impoverished citizens will be forgotten in the political arguments.
Of course it is early. It would be premature to make any predictions. There are some difficult and serious negations that have to be made to define the new relationship with Europe. The funds in the European Union didn’t just flow one direction. Britain will not only gain the money that was sent to support the Union, it will also lose the support that came from the Union. New treaties have to be negotiated and the terms of the exit will have to be worked out. Not everything is as simple as it seemed during the campaign.
I’m no expert, just a casual observer who has been reading the British press for some time. From my perspective it is interesting because I think that the phenomenon of people voting against their own best interests is very common. Not long ago I read Facebook posts from an hourly wage earner who was arguing against a raise in the minimum wage. His argument was that he had worked hard to get from minimum wage to his current pay level and it isn’t fair that new workers should make more than he does now. He couldn’t see the benefits that he would realize if wages went up. Henry Ford, not a proponent of higher wages, discovered that there were great financial advantages to the entire economy when the workers in his factories were paid enough to be able to afford to purchase the automobiles they were manufacturing. Selling more automobiles was good for Ford. The same principle applies today. The owners of Wal-Mart might think that they are “winning” when their employees use food stamps to shop at their stores, but in the long run, people not having enough money to purchase the products you sell is not good for business.
In 1 Samuel the elders of Israel approached Samuel at Ramah and asked him to appoint a king. Samuel is disappointed in the request and prays about it. He tells the people that a king will take away their sons to serve in his armies, will take over their land to fund his needs, and will take the best of the produce and flocks. The people, however, don’t listen to Samuel’s arguments. They want a king so that they can be like other nations. They want a king to fight their battles for them. Samuel prays again and gives in and appoints Saul as king. All of the predictions Samuel makes come true and after a few kings and a string of failed monarchies Israel is divided and finally conquered. It turns out that having a king wasn’t one of the ways to achieve peace and justice for Israel. But it was the demand of the people.
Sometimes the people call for things that aren’t in their best interest. Leaders, even Samuel, however, cannot ignore the will of the people.
As a tumultuous campaign continues in our nation and the claims of the politicians become more and more extreme, I wonder if we are heading to a time of voter’s remorse in our own nation. It is hard for an average citizen to know what is in the best interests of the nation in the midst of such a clamor of political rhetoric.
Like Samuel, I think the first step for us should be to pray.
There are some in Great Britain who are experiencing a similar phenomenon. I guess you could call it voter’s remorse. On talk shows across Britain this past weekend, leaders of the “leave” movement were backing off of the promises made during the campaign.
One of the promises of the campaign was that the money that Britain sent to the European Union would be invested in Britain’s National Health Service. The leave campaign had a big red bus with “We send the EU £350 million, let’s fund our NHS instead.” painted on the outside. However, Nigel Farage, one of the leading voices calling for Britain’s exit from the European Union, appeared on “Good Morning Britain” and called that promise a “mistake.” It appears that the £350 million won’t be going to fund the NHS. Ian Duncan Smith, another “leave” campaigner, said on “The Andrew Marr Show” that the figure itself was an “extrapolation” and that the campaign had never said all the money would go to the NHS, despite the advertisements and big bus.
It appears that the anti-immigration sentiment of the campaign might not find much traction in the real world now that the vote has taken place. “Leave” campaigner Nigel Evans was interviewed on BBC Radio 5. The interviewer asked about the mechanism to decrease immigration now that the vote had taken place . Evans refused to confirm that there would be a decrease in immigration. He said that there is a difference between “controlling” immigration and having actual numbers of immigrants decline.
Britain has experienced some very tough economic times and some of its citizens are experiencing poverty that isn’t easily abated. The 1970’s and 1980’s saw mass layoffs in many industries in Britain and in the decades that have followed the poverty has become entrenched. Those people living in poverty were among the most ardent supporters of the “leave” campaign. They were desperate for change but the promises of great cost savings and a decrease in immigration that would result in more jobs for British citizens, seem now to be far from being fulfilled as Britain tries to figure out how to govern its widely divided population. With leaders of the campaign backing off from the promises made during the campaign and great uncertainty about how to accomplish the departure from the EU, it is beginning to appear that the promises will be the first things to be left behind and the conditions of Britain’s most impoverished citizens will be forgotten in the political arguments.
Of course it is early. It would be premature to make any predictions. There are some difficult and serious negations that have to be made to define the new relationship with Europe. The funds in the European Union didn’t just flow one direction. Britain will not only gain the money that was sent to support the Union, it will also lose the support that came from the Union. New treaties have to be negotiated and the terms of the exit will have to be worked out. Not everything is as simple as it seemed during the campaign.
I’m no expert, just a casual observer who has been reading the British press for some time. From my perspective it is interesting because I think that the phenomenon of people voting against their own best interests is very common. Not long ago I read Facebook posts from an hourly wage earner who was arguing against a raise in the minimum wage. His argument was that he had worked hard to get from minimum wage to his current pay level and it isn’t fair that new workers should make more than he does now. He couldn’t see the benefits that he would realize if wages went up. Henry Ford, not a proponent of higher wages, discovered that there were great financial advantages to the entire economy when the workers in his factories were paid enough to be able to afford to purchase the automobiles they were manufacturing. Selling more automobiles was good for Ford. The same principle applies today. The owners of Wal-Mart might think that they are “winning” when their employees use food stamps to shop at their stores, but in the long run, people not having enough money to purchase the products you sell is not good for business.
In 1 Samuel the elders of Israel approached Samuel at Ramah and asked him to appoint a king. Samuel is disappointed in the request and prays about it. He tells the people that a king will take away their sons to serve in his armies, will take over their land to fund his needs, and will take the best of the produce and flocks. The people, however, don’t listen to Samuel’s arguments. They want a king so that they can be like other nations. They want a king to fight their battles for them. Samuel prays again and gives in and appoints Saul as king. All of the predictions Samuel makes come true and after a few kings and a string of failed monarchies Israel is divided and finally conquered. It turns out that having a king wasn’t one of the ways to achieve peace and justice for Israel. But it was the demand of the people.
Sometimes the people call for things that aren’t in their best interest. Leaders, even Samuel, however, cannot ignore the will of the people.
As a tumultuous campaign continues in our nation and the claims of the politicians become more and more extreme, I wonder if we are heading to a time of voter’s remorse in our own nation. It is hard for an average citizen to know what is in the best interests of the nation in the midst of such a clamor of political rhetoric.
Like Samuel, I think the first step for us should be to pray.