MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

03 September 2010

Right-to-hunt amendments? Aren't these just transparent Republican dog-whistle get-out-the-vote efforts (like e.g. '04's 11 statewide gay-marriage ban votes)?

Why don't Democrats use this strategy?
post by: box at: 08:12 | 7 comments
I don't know that I'd really want a Democrat themed "guns, gods, gays", simplistic jingo theme. Something that relies on fear gets you great short term results, but horrible long term ones.

It's hard to get people to react to rights for other people. The R's have the perfect strategy of making it all about "you", and lying and cheating to achieve their ends is no barrier.

posted by lysdexic 03 September | 08:55
I think, for the same reason that liberal/progressive radio has been a failure: A higher percentage of "us" are out living our lives and do not have as much time to tune in for our marching orders.

We're not as easily manipulated, therefore we can never be a dependable voting bloc.

(There are all kinds of exceptions to this, of course.)

Upon preview. . .the Becks and Palins could take this post as proof of their assertions that "we" look down on "them."
posted by danf 03 September | 09:55
the National Rifle Association wants to get the pre-emptive amendment in place quickly, before animal rights groups can persuade a majority of Americans that hunting is bad.

What are we going to do to preempt the inevitability that the majority of Americans will believe that vaccination causes autism and that Obama is a Muslim?
posted by Obscure Reference 03 September | 11:37
Potential dog whistle D issues:

health care
children's rights
animal protection
environmental measures
freedom of expression measures
domestic violence services
sexual assault services

Just sayin'
posted by bearwife 03 September | 12:39
Maybe it's a contributing factor that Repubs are more monolithic (kind of a rich-person/social-conservative/libertarian alliance verses a women/minorities/labor/liberals/etc. one), or that Republicans are just better at the framing/marketing/strategy/game-playing part of politics?

This latter one really bums me out, and not just because I don't understand why it's that way.
posted by box 03 September | 12:49
I think the answer to this question (as much as there can be one) is a lot simpler than anything thrown out here. The Dems control the White House, the Senate, the House and (increasingly) the SC. Larger issues like Health Care (reform, as lousy at it was, has already been passed), Equal Rights for Gays (it's going to be an ugly battle, but the conclusion is inevitable. The only question is time), Abortion (the pro-life contingent are grasping at tiny straws here. Roe v Wade isn't going away)are out of their reach. All they have left is getting angry and paranoid about the fact that the majority POV they've enjoyed for the better part of the entirety of the US's history is slipping out of their grasp. And good riddance, natch.

So they cling to what little they have left. And they react harshly. They have a chunk of the media that gets great ratings and money by pandering and feeding into that anxiety.

Look, transitions on this level are going to be rough, but I try to keep in mind that the louder and crazier the Right get, the more it means they're losing.

What are we going to do to preempt the inevitability that the majority of Americans will believe that vaccination causes autism and that Obama is a Muslim?

Neither of those are approaching a majority, nor will they. It's a loud tiny minority whose numbers are being inflated by the media.

And looking at bearwife's list (not to pick on you, just a thought from a lib living in Okla-fucking-homa)
health care
children's rights
animal protection
environmental measures
freedom of expression measures
domestic violence services
sexual assault services


Health Care - We're just now coming out of that fight, and the results were weak but progress was made. It'll be a bit before that comes back on the table (sadly)

Children's Rights - I'm not sure what that entails? The Right have usurped "family values" (which given how they'd prefer teachers not get raises and would rather have kiddos in the foster system than allow gay families to adopt is obviously bullshit) but again, I'm not sure how you could single that out to a Dem issue without wrapping it in with a larger issue like education reform or gay rights?

Animal Protection - is being done on a State Legislative level (at least as far as regulation of breeders, trying to prevent puppy/kitten mills). Larger issues like battery farming or environmental habitats will have to be a National issue.

Freedom of Expression - again, not sure where you're going with this?

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault services - That is definitely a local thing, and something that is very important. In my former life, when I did budget work for a (very large) County, one of my depts. was the Forensic Sciences. When going over their request for an increase in their budget for "rape-kits", one of the County Commishes asked why that was needed and if there was anything we could do to prevent the need for them. I kind of overstepped my boss and replied, into the mic, "Sure, have less rape in the County".

But with cities/county and state budgets being fucked all around, I hate to say that I can't see a huge impact on this any time soon.
posted by ufez 03 September | 14:11
It's because pro-liberal agendas also work as right wing get-out-the-vote campaigns.
posted by fleacircus 03 September | 15:00
Photo Friday: Non Mammals || Minor moral dilemma

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN