Joe the Plumber

[Eric B]

This may seem like it should be in politics; but it is really more about type.

I had recently heard about Joe the Plumber quoted recently as saying he didn't like something McCain had done, but that he was "not as afraid of him as Obama", and wondered why he felt that way. During the election, I did not remember hearing such strong opinion about one candidate or the other from him. So I looked him up on Wikipedia, and saw that he was afraid of Obama's tax plans, which he said were "like socialism". He basically reiterated McCain's claim that this was "wealth redistribution", which has long been a conservative buzzword to trash liberal policies in opposition to their "supply side" schemes. Obama had made it clear that his plan would tax those way above Joe's bracket, which would see less taxes. McCain would have given the middle class bigger tax breaks, but at the same time we would have to for the first time be taxed on healthcare.

Yet, Joe, regardless of his disagreements with McCain, nevertheless seemed to buy his "wealth redistribution" rhetoric as much of America has done since Reagan. Thankfully, this election, much of the rest of the country didn't buy it this time! The financial crisis apparently woke them up on the notion that giving the rich more will improve the economy. Yet I was always annoyed at how people like Joe seem to sheepishly support the interests of the rich as their own. People like him apparently project themselves into the rich executives' shoes by saying they wouldn't want to work if their money is taken away. I could never understand why people would think like this. Those rich don't care about you, and they do screw you along with everyone else.

Now, thinking of this in light of type and functions; I'm wondering if this might be Fi at work. He seems like he could be an IxFP type, and that would explain it. Not taxing people for wealth would be a subjective value, and even if not aimed at the person himself; he will oppose candidates who violate the value regarding others. Hence, how they could get angry at the taxing of the rich, even though they are not rich.

This, while still annoying to me, at least now would make me understand it better, and not have the dumbfounded wonderment of how people could be so stupid. Me, with projective Fe, believes that those at the top should not be allowed to hoard everything while everyone else suffers. We ALL "work hard", not just the executives, and sharing is for the greater good. (Though I realize taking from others will still more than likely breed resentment, and the people can find ways to get around it; taking their business elsewhere, if nothing else. Still, they should not be allowed to take it all, and we should be able to look for a better resolution).

So to be sure; is that an example of Fi? I also notice that those in this forum who have echoed similar sentiments as Joe tend to be Feeling types (though FJ as well as FP). It seems like "logic" favors taxation, while "ethics" favor everyone keeping what they earned (though my logic and ethics question whether the powerful really earned all that honestly, and not through pulling strings, raising prices, lowering quality, outsourcing for cheap labor, etc).

 

[Mondo]

Someone who is Fi dominant is very good at seeing the good and the bad in things. He knows that neither Obama nor McCain are 100% ethical and that's what bothers Joe the Plumber.

 

[Jeffster]

Eric, you are a funny guy, man. That was hilarious. "Taxing the rich" is objective and logical. Man, you crack me up. Great stuff.

 

[Kiddo]

Anything that has to do with stark individualism seems like Fi to me. The whole thinking process of "I want to keep what I earn" is a clear argument of the worth of work, which is definitely an evaluation of value that is indicative of Fi. There is no consideration of others or the group as a whole in that thinking process; only thinking in terms of the absolute significance of looking out for what is important to the individual.

Of course, you could go into that whole Ayn Rand philosophy of "looking out for the individual is what is best for others and the group as a whole," but not all individuals with high Fi buy into that philosophy.

 

[Eric B]

Anything that has to do with stark individualism seems like Fi to me. The whole thinking process of "I want to keep what I earn" is a clear argument of the worth of work, which is definitely an evaluation of value that is indicative of Fi. There is no consideration of others or the group as a whole in that thinking process; only thinking in terms of the absolute significance of looking out for what is important to the individual.

So yeah; that's what I was thinking. I guess it would be both Fi types, as well as society's dominant STJ type with its relief or apirational Fi that would foster individualism as well.

Of course, you could go into that whole Ayn Rand philosophy of "looking out for the individual is what is best for others and the group as a whole," but not all individuals with high Fi buy into that philosophy.

That's the type of thing I always wonder about. That sort of muddies the distinction between Je and Ji.

Eric, you are a funny guy, man. That was hilarious. "Taxing the rich" is objective and logical. Man, you crack me up. Great stuff.

Well, actually...
"Fairness" by an objective standard like that is considered a Thinking judgment! Descriptions give as an example "everybody gets one [of whatever], and that's it". Making an exception for some due to a subjective claim, such as working harder or longer (think the Biblical parable of the workers in the vineyard), or, to be fair, lack of advantage; is considered Feeling. (And the tax increase was not said to be for the less advantaged this time, but to spread to everybody).

So if you have a sorely imbalanced economy, then how do we even it out? Thinking would say that the most quick and efficient way is to take from those with more and spread it around. Now; I'm not saying that's right. Feeling would evaluate whether people "deserve" more or not, or how much more, etc. That's why we need balance in the judging functions.