Why have hot-button issues mainly been social, not economic?

[FerrisBueller86]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

[Lunar]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

The Republicans get to set the agenda and they choose winning issues for themselves.  It's that simple.

[Gabu]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

I personally think it's probably because economic issues can be talked about scientifically, while social issues are mostly philosophical in nature.  It's usually impossible to reconcile differences over social issues for that reason.

Plus, social issues usually have religion mixed in in some shape or form, and - no offense to the religious of the board - religion is one of the biggest things that makes people unable to have a rational discussion with someone who disagrees.

[A18]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

The Republicans get to set the agenda and they choose winning issues for themselves.  It's that simple.

Some economic issues are winning issues.

For example, if the Democrats filibuster this death tax bill, the GOP will be wise to make it an issue in the 2006 congressional elections.

Also, Reagan ran almost entirely on economic issues. This was the first "social issues" campaign in a while.

[Lunar]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

The Republicans get to set the agenda and they choose winning issues for themselves.  It's that simple.

Some economic issues are winning issues.

For example, if the Democrats filibuster this death tax bill, the GOP will be wise to make it an issue in the 2006 congressional elections.

Also, Reagan ran almost entirely on economic issues. This was the first "social issues" campaign in a while.

Sure, I'm not saying economic issues are ignored.  The tax cuts were pretty polarizing - the reason why they were on the forefront instead of the backburner is because the Republicans get to choose what controversial bills to push.

[A18]

I think most people hate the estate tax, but I could be wrong. They're thinking about repealing about 99% of it as a compromise, but that sounds really lame. Why can't taxes ever die? Just get rid of the whole thing.

[dazzleman]

Monetarily, the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts live in states that voted for Kerry.

Social issues really are at the forefront.  I think part of the reason for this is that the economy has been relatively good since the mid-1990s, and many people have started to take it for granted, particularly those on the upper end of the economic scale.

I'm not totally satisfied with this explanation, but I can't think of a better one right now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, dazzleman, you hit it on head.  Even during the last brief mild recession, our economy was doing demonstrably better than that of other industrialized economies.  As such, economic troubles aren’t able to gain much traction politically.  It’s a lot harder to campaign on the theme that you can do better than to campaign on the theme that your opponent can’t do worse.  It will take a prolonged or deep peiod of economic trouble to make the economy issue #1  Note that I consider economic equity such as what Gore emphasized in his 2000 campaign to be a different issue.

[Nym90]

Monetarily, the biggest beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts live in states that voted for Kerry.

Social issues really are at the forefront.  I think part of the reason for this is that the economy has been relatively good since the mid-1990s, and many people have started to take it for granted, particularly those on the upper end of the economic scale.

I'm not totally satisfied with this explanation, but I can't think of a better one right now.

Actually I'd disagree that the economy has been all that good over the last 4 years or so, but I digress.

I think that social issues are easier for people to understand. On the economy, most swing voters don't have strong principles one way or the other; they simply want the economy to be good. To the extent that they vote on the basis of economic issues, they either vote for or against the incumbent party based on the performance of the economy at the time. They don't really care about the theories; they just care about what works. This makes sense, as it is much easier to guage the overall effectiveness of economic policy than it is of social policy.

Social issues are more about values and morality, and economic issues are more about logic and statistics. The average person has a better understanding of the former than the latter, I think. Politicians have exploited this over the years and played into it by stressing social issues, because it is much easier to get a good soundbite on them. The media is also to blame, by stressing soundbites and discouraging honest debate.

[The Duke]

Ernest and Dazzleman are partly right, that the economy has been good enough in the last quarter century that we don't worry much about the basics.

Gabu is partly right, that economics is a scientific dialogue, and social issues are an emotional one.  No one would even think to say, "You ran up a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP, you're a baby killer!"  I'd like to add on to that, though, that so few people understand economics well enough to have strong feelings about it anyway.  Its not hard to understand basically what gay marriage means.  This is why foreign affairs issues can be a hot button sometimes, we all know what a war is, we don't all know what the Laffer curve is, so foreign policy fits this bill too.

[opebo]

Because most people are not desperate yet.  We're getting close though.

[angus]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

The Republicans get to set the agenda and they choose winning issues for themselves.  It's that simple.

I'm curious as to why you'd say that.  It seems to imply that the democrats do not have the opportunity or ability to set the agenda.  If so, why not?

[angus]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

I find it incredibly frustrating too.  I don't give a rat's ass one way or another what a politician has to say about two men getting married or about whether he feels abortion is sinful.  I suppose if they were equal on all important issues, and it came down to it, I'd vote for the guy that was into letting two men get married if they wanted, etc., but they're never equal, are they.  and that's the frustrating part.  I would also like to see a good answer to this question.  dazzleman made a good point.  Maybe it's a Maslow's Hierarchy Triangle, but applied to a whole society.  And maybe food, shelter, and clothing needs have been fulfilled, so now we're into self-actualization.  I never feel that way, but then I tend to save and invest, as I'm fairly cheap.  But to listen to the news reports, that's atypical yank behavior.  Thus dazzleman's point is at least superficially validated.  Another line of evidence to support that argument is cross-cultural.  Remember when I was bitching about how folks from OECD countries are boring to talk to about politics, since it's always that fluffy wedge issue crap?  Well, it kinda makes sense in the hierarchy of needs frame of reference.  If you're from El Salvador, you're likely to be passionate about important issues because you likely haven't met those needs yet, whereas if you're from the USA or Germany or even Spain and Greece (though the latter is something of a stretch), you're likely to have satisfied those needs due to the combined political activities of activists in previous generations.  So you bitch about the weather, and other stuff beyond your control:  what to do with the fat woman, what to do with the girly man, what to do with the assholes that make you angry.  maybe dazzleman's point wasn't so far off the mark.

[opebo]

Ernest and Dazzleman are partly right, that the economy has been good enough in the last quarter century that we don't worry much about the basics.

Gabu is partly right, that economics is a scientific dialogue, and social issues are an emotional one.  No one would even think to say, "You ran up a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP, you're a baby killer!"  I'd like to add on to that, though, that so few people understand economics well enough to have strong feelings about it anyway.  Its not hard to understand basically what gay marriage means.  This is why foreign affairs issues can be a hot button sometimes, we all know what a war is, we don't all know what the Laffer curve is, so foreign policy fits this bill too.

What makes you think someone needs to understand the Laffer curve theory in order to vote on economic issues?

All he has to so is get tired of living on $7 an hour and have some poltician say, I'll make your minimum wage double that, and give you health insurance.  The odd thing is that few politicians say that, and few of that downtrodden half or so of the population vote.  But it has nothing to do with understanding various economic theories.

[The Duke]

Ernest and Dazzleman are partly right, that the economy has been good enough in the last quarter century that we don't worry much about the basics.

Gabu is partly right, that economics is a scientific dialogue, and social issues are an emotional one.  No one would even think to say, "You ran up a budget deficit of more than 3% of GDP, you're a baby killer!"  I'd like to add on to that, though, that so few people understand economics well enough to have strong feelings about it anyway.  Its not hard to understand basically what gay marriage means.  This is why foreign affairs issues can be a hot button sometimes, we all know what a war is, we don't all know what the Laffer curve is, so foreign policy fits this bill too.

What makes you think someone needs to understand the Laffer curve theory in order to vote on economic issues?

All he has to so is get tired of living on $7 an hour and have some poltician say, I'll make your minimum wage double that, and give you health insurance.  The odd thing is that few politicians say that, and few of that downtrodden half or so of the population vote.  But it has nothing to do with understanding various economic theories.

Its not a question of simply voting on an issue, its a question of it being a "hot button" issue, one that gets people's blood to boil.

I also disagree that promising a $14 per hour minimum wage and national health care would be a winning combo, since most people don't make less than $14 per hour anyway and most people already have health insurance.  I know you think America is filled with barefoot children searching for bannana peels to eat in the city dump, but its not actually like that.

[angus]

remember back in high school when the upper classmen told you that you could catch a buzz from smoking banana peels.  boy, how naive we were back then.  what a sore throat, eh?

[The Duke]

remember back in high school when the upper classmen told you that you could catch a buzz from smoking banana peels.  boy, how naive we were back then.  what a sore throat, eh?

What the ?

[Lunar]

The biggest hot button issues are abortion and gay marriage.

Why are social issues more likely to push hot buttons than economic ones?  Just about any given economic issue (like taxes, the deficit, business regulations, labor issues, etc.) will have a bigger impact on more people on a day-to-day basis.

The Republicans get to set the agenda and they choose winning issues for themselves.  It's that simple.

I'm curious as to why you'd say that.  It seems to imply that the democrats do not have the opportunity or ability to set the agenda.  If so, why not?

Well:

The Republicans dominate the committees and subcommittees that kill the bills they don't want to vote on. 

Whenever the Republican president proposes legislation, it becomes a big-ticket item throughout the media.

The Democrats lack any real capability to succeed in any agenda they claim, decreasing their credibility both in the media and the masses.

[opebo]

Its not a question of simply voting on an issue, its a question of it being a "hot button" issue, one that gets people's blood to boil.

I also disagree that promising a $14 per hour minimum wage and national health care would be a winning combo, since most people don't make less than $14 per hour anyway and most people already have health insurance.  I know you think America is filled with barefoot children searching for bannana peels to eat in the city dump, but its not actually like that.

$14 an hour is almost exactly the U.S. median hourly wage, meaning that half of working people do in fact make less than $14 an hour.  It is you, not I, that have an unrealistic view of your country's economy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/20/national/main661924.shtml
And here are some average earnings which are of course much less reflective of the commoner's situation than medians, but still interestingly low:
http://ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat37.txt

[??????????]

Because to some non-greedy Americans strong moral values are more important then simple monetary issues. And no Opebo, I don't need any commentary from a molestor on the issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's no need for a hot-button issue to be a wedge issue; I personally think the Democrats could win back most of the Democrats who don't vote for Democratic presidential candidates (and there are a lot more of these than the wee exit polls show...) if they were to put a moral emphasis on (say) poverty or unemployment.

I'll go so far as to say they're stupid not to.