Voting Against Economic Self-Interest

There was an excellent article in the Washington Post yesterday about small-town voters fearing they'd be forgotten about if Obama wins. Yet, as you read the stories of the people in the article, and the hard times they've been facing, you see that they fail to realize that, in a way, they've already been forgotten about.

The article starts about the billboard (pictured above) with Obama in a turban (Note: Why do they put Hussein in quotes? Do they think that's his nickname and not his actual middle name? Fascinating!).

Midway through the article, we get a great snapshot of a person uniwttingly voting against his economic self-interest. Or at least of a person who seems to have no idea that his supposed opinion is completey cock-eyed. The guy has a sad, hard-luck story that is all-too-typical in America today: no health insurance, job could be outsourced to Mexico, plus some tragedies thrown in of a a child dying and becoming addicted to meth. It seems that all he wants is to go back to the way things used to be. A time before unemployment, back when there was economic security, or at least a way to make ends meet. Yet, he views a message of "change" to be anethema to him (it seems there might be some race issues coming into this):

"There was a time not long ago where somebody like Obama would have tried to become president, and they would have run him out on a rail," Collins said. "That's back when this country had backbone. Now, we say, 'Okay. He might be different than what we're used to, but maybe we can use a change.' But wait a minute now. What was wrong with the way things were?"

So, essentially he's against Obama because he's afraid that "change" will affect the past, which he wants to go back to, as opposed to the present, which he views as a failure. I can understand that you might disagree with the partiular type of change that someone offers, but being against change in general, when the present is crushing you, is a little sad to see.