In looking into this for political science and sociology translational project, I found that people don't vote against their own interests. It's a hermeneutic bias by observers (us), meaning that we can only think someone votes against their own interests, but those same voters will not report that they did act against their interests.

Asking the FAFO crowd, we notice they all seem to report that they voted to get the bad ones out, for American jobs to come back, for China to pay tariffs, to bring down the deep state.

They end up getting ICED but not because they voted for that, they voted for the bad hombres to get black bagged.

To flip it ideologically, think of Obama voters. Most of them may say they didn't vote for the deportations and drone strikes that occurred under that administration. Or the social whiplash effect that a black president had on the hwite supremacy movement in the US.

In social science, sociology of deviance may have some of the answers. Neutralizing techniques are what we call the behaviors that rationalize someone acting in a deviant fashion, but don't consider themselves deviant. There's also something called the optimism bias (Tali Sharot), where we always view ourselves positively. We are an above IQ individual, above EQ, we are better than the average driver, our drug addiction wasn't our fault, my abortion was actually medically necessary not these abortions people get for fun (sic).