Let's Fix the Mismatch Between What We Say We Believe and How We Vote

Let’s Fix the Mismatch Between What We Say We Believe and How We Vote

Most Americans want access to great public schools and quality healthcare for everyone. They want action to counter fossil fuel-driven climate change. They oppose immigrants and citizens being snatched off the street and murdered by ICE agents. They want an end to unconditional U.S. support for Israeli genocide and illegal land seizure in Palestine. They want regulations that prioritize people over profits. But that’s not how enough of us have been voting. In part, that’s because there has been a steady creep of anti-social values into how we make sense of the world in which we live. This bipartisan infusion of rampant self-interest has been going on for quite some time. As a result, we often fail to recognize that what we say we believe and how we vote don’t match. It is killing us.

The insidious perfidy of the Trump/Musk/Epstein era–its celebration of callous self-interest, mocking of empathy, and exaltation of out-for-yourselfism–is its debasement of American moral culture and regard for one another. The impunity of the rich and powerful, highlighted by the release of the Epstein files, is obvious, unsurprising, and damning. But it’s not just the ultra-rich. The 1987 “Greed is good” Wall Street movie line struck a resonant chord because it described our social and economic environment. It seems we simultaneously condemn and celebrate the pursuit of crass self-interest.

After all, look at who we elect and what they represent.

None of this arose with Trump’s presidential victory or Musk’s rise to ubiquity. The roots of it all are deep and bipartisan. However, it was accelerated when President Reagan boldly declared that government was the problem, not the solution. Then, Bill Clinton embraced that ethos to announce that the era of big government was over. In other words, he proclaimed that taking responsibility for one another is old-fashioned and no longer who we are or should be. Later, Hillary Clinton talked about bringing super-predators to heal. She wasn’t talking about corporations routinely ripping off average Americans. So, rather than directly challenge the anti-social conservative onslaught, leading Democrats succumbed to it, choosing access to power and campaign cash over our collective well-being.

That anti-social framing was reinforced when multiple Democrats, led by President Obama, leaned into individual choice and personal success through charter schools over community responsibility for public schools for all as a model for education. It happened when leading Democrats rejected universal healthcare and favored private personal, medical insurance in a naive anticipatory compromise with Republicans who had no intention of such. It continues today when we continue to elect both Republicans and Democrats who regard the lives of Palestinians as less than worthy of regard and protection, so much so that genocide is accepted as self-interest in an us-or-them world.

And, of course, in the biggest boost to transactional behavior, Democrats continue in the thrall and captivity of their corporate and AIPAC donors, whose self-interest is in direct opposition to a more equitable, secure life for all at home and abroad.

The erosion of social responsibility isn’t just about voting or elected policy choices. It’s revealed in personal choices, as when, for example, communities oppose inclusionary zoning to build more affordable housing and racially diverse schools.

All doom and gloom? No! There are signs of hope. The bifurcation of voting behavior and Americans’ professed beliefs is breaking down. The election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City mayor and now Analilia Mejia in a New Jersey special U.S. Senate election with strong grassroots support are two prominent examples. Nominating and electing better politicians is necessary but not sufficient.

Growing popular resistance to both ICE, U.S. support for genocide in Palestine, and popular outrage about the impunity of the powerful, will hopefully translate into more election challenges and victories. That’s what we need to keep working toward: Popular resistance and prioritizing candidates with integrity who stand up for justice and equity for all, with no exceptions, every day. We need to fix the mismatch between what we say we believe and how we vote.

We can each play a role. First, push for democratic decision making for endorsements rather than by a small group of leaders push organizations that can endorse or support candidates. Second, push organizations to abandon what is now their typical decision strategy: Siding with mainstream candidates who don’t stand for our values but who are judged be likely to win, in the delusional hope of subsequent influence. Third, when one of our preferred candidates wins hold them accountable through organized pressure and continued vigorous resistance.