Robert Goodman wrote:
Maybe the difference has to do with the sort of thing it means for a leader to state a position, versus a follower. I think among the rank & file there are plenty who'll go along with drug reforms, in that they'll agree with that side in a survey or when you ask them. But I think it's a lot harder for a leader to take a public position like that.
Back in the 1970s, all politicians who were pro-choice on abortion felt obligated to make the statement "I am personally opposed to abortion but ..." That has certainly changed. At this point, no one cares about a candidate's "personal" views on abortion, but only about the public policy stance that person takes. Perhaps the same will happen with the drug issue.
And I think this is a result of something I've noted at lesat elsewhere (DRCtalk) and maybe here too. That is, as the issues are lumped symbolically, a lot more people are HIGHLY MOTIVATED to be anti than pro. For instance, when it comes to medimar, the vast majority of people of all kinds are in favor. However, the issue affects relatively few people directly, and few people in favor would make it a priority. Meanwhile, there are a great many more people for whom the "narcotics issue" is to be considered as a symbolic bloc (because one doesn't often get a chance to state a nuanced position and have enough people pay att'n), and who are highly motivated to oppose any reform.
Why are they so motivated?
As an isolated issue, secret ballot, many reforms win in a landslide. But among people who will vote for or against a candidate based on this single issue, a lot more are against than for. And in this case, it doesn't help that the "universe" is "known" to be polarized into "liberal" and "conservative" camps, in which the "conservative" side is "supposed" to be anti-sensual. It will take a VAST amount of communication to overcome this "convenient" categoriz'n.
So if you're a politician who favors legalizing medimar, the logical thing to do would be to push for a referendum on the issue. Then, post-vote, you could say "the people have spoken and I have to uphold their view." Seems better than continuing to back positions both you and your constituents oppose.
In the last congressional election, the GOP candidate was Scott Paterno, son of Penn State coach Joe Paterno, but otherwise with no particular qualifications, though I met him and he seemed OK. In college (not that long ago, since he's in his 30s), he had written in support of drug legalization. He felt obligated to renounce that view and most people accepted it. When I met him and told him he should have stuck with his position, I got the sense that he still held his original view. He got thumped in the election by a 9-or-so term incumbent, though the GOP has a significant registration edge. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had he come out for drug legalization. I can't imagine he would have done any worse than he did. BTW, he did about as well as the pre- and post-primary polls said he would.
Regards, Doug Friedman _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
