Quote:
Originally Posted by SebC
I was thinking about this today (as a result of Rerun bringing up Wildrose in the context of polls being inaccurate), and this thread seems like as good a place as any.
Jane, I know you like to argue that Wildrose isn't a party of nutjobs. Your argument is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the policies aren't nutty (we disagree on whether "conscience rights" is nutty) and therefore the party isn't nutty. But here's the thing I was thinking about: in some ways, when you are perceived as extreme-right, reality will follow perception. If people believe you are socially regressive, you will attract socially regressive people. And then those supporters will affect your policies (or at least your image), and further alienate the mainstream. It's a tricky thing to deal with... can you turn people away? Can you clearly position yourselves so that you don't attract the crazies? Can you afford to do that? Can you afford not to?
|
I think every party can draw crazies. Neither the left nor right (or centre) can claim to be nut-free. Unless your overall party numbers are extremely, and I mean EXTREMELY low; then crazy policies may slip through.
As for the conscience rights it's a redundant policy. Doctors already have it in their Standards of Practice. So I don't think the party needs to duplicate that and I certainly won't be calling the College of Physicians and Surgeons nutty.