Robert Goodman wrote:
I saw the politics of abortion in the USA as a very different picture. I
don't recall either side of the issue being considered counter-cultural.
But abortion is very anomalous because its politics were short-circuited by
a judicial decision. Its political alignment did change over the time
period you mention, settling into its current pattern by the early 1980s,
but it doesn't seem to have anything like the same flavor as drug issues.
I don't agree. Back in the 1970s, as I recall, supporting abortion was seen
as being "anti-moral." That's why all pro-choicers, even in Dem primaries,
felt obliged to add the "I am personally opposed to abortion, but ..."
What it DOES share is a symbolic content, but of a different type.
Politicians can comfortably take a stance on the issue while being
confident that for all practical purposes they can have no effect on gov't
policy.
You're unlikely to see the candidates differ vocally on the issue. In the
recent NJ election for governor, both major candidates stated their support
for med mj, and it turned out to be a blowout. So you can get candidates
to come out "pro", but only if their opponents do too.
But why is that? As I said, I can understand that in a close race a
candidate might be concerned, but in a race already expected to be a
blowout, why does a candidate not speak his/her mind? Or have a longshot
roll the dice and gamble that by supporting a position held by 70-80% of his
potential constituents he might pull out a win? Especially when taking the
standard course seems likely to guarantee defeat. Why accept the guaranteed
loss?
Well, yeah. My analysis applies to all hedonic substance prohibitions.
Keep in mind that some state legislatures have legalized medimar; however,
it was not an issue the legislators had campaigned on. It's generally
thought that elections and proximity thereto are bad for that position --
that it's better to wait until after the election to lobby for it.
Generally thought, but AFAIK totally untested. Before the GOP primary I
spoke with one of the candidates for that House seat that Joe Paterno's son
won the nomination for. He basically agreed with me on marijuana - medical
and recreational - but said there was no way he could voice that position in
public. He finished in 4th in a 6-way race, though I think he was one of 2
or 3 candidates actually qualified for the job. Granted, he was worried
about the future - I assume he'll try again - but Scott Paterno has no
political future. If he'd stuck to his position, even run on it, he might
have had a chance. Why does someone with no future still stick to the
conventional position?
Regards,
Doug
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
