Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I wouldn't say the religious vote is money, it's just quantity, and when you've catered your party to cater to these morons, you're stuck with it. I'm betting most congressmen, even the "conservative" ones privately don't give a #### about gay marriage.
As far as it happening here, I don't think we'll ever have the gay marriage attitude here as aggressive as it is down there. Some people will never support it on either side of the border. I do agree though that we're seeing some of the stupid US style crap creeping up here and it needs to be strangled in the cradle.
|
This is sort of how it works.
Since it now requires a heck of a lot more money to run, even in local or 'regular' races, politicians are either A) Beholden to private interest for their political careers or B) The sort of already-indoctrinated-nutjob that can be an acceptable puppet for whatever popular opinion needs to be supported at the time.
What that does is distort the message. In the local environment at the primary level, advertisements etc., paint the non-mainstream candidate as mainstream and the alternative as either too liberal, or too establishment. An appeal to some of the very base issues of these voters is then re-affirmed by a campaign pointed at them. As this fervour grows you capitalise on these sentiments. Most of these people are poor for instance (and before anyone tries to argue otherwise, 40% of Americans made less than $20 000 last year) and are generally unhappy with their current situation. Preying on this poverty, the message is re-affirmed that government is wasteful and that with less of it, they'd have more money (the opposite, actually), and that the opposing candidate either A) Wants to grow the government even more (too liberal) or B) is part of the reason government is too big to start with (establishment).
Without the money, the 'normal' candidate, cannot compete with the cacophony that is both local, but also extremely well developed on a national level. With prominent members of the party already beholden to these interests, the gates are locked at the primary level and can't be swayed at the national level. Aside from the money however, is the other benefit. If you're 'their guy', then you're not 'the target'. Sometimes it's not even the money, it is very simply being out of the cross-hairs that makes it politically expedient.
As the wealth continues to accumulate in these political races, increasingly maligned and fringe beliefs will be regarded as within the standard political conversation, shifting the discourse to an even more radical degree. Financial de-regulation, environmental de-regulation, anti-union sentiments, anti-democratic sentiments, nationalist sentiments, all gain traction as reasonable, debatable policy. They are also necessary distractions, as they tasks and accomplishments to be pointed to for the next election cycle. If you aren't rabidly for some hardline conservative stance, you risk being too liberal or too establishment next go 'round, which is how several prominent long serving conservatives found themselves on the outside looking in.
Edit: so it isn't that bible thumping Americans are a prominent or near majority vote, it's that they are an easily manipulated group that you can pander to for moral high ground. By taking positions the rabid right favour, you insulate yourself from future criticism, even if you are completely unsuccessful in accomplishing things like abortion challenges, prayer in school etc. then if you are seen as a solid right winger, when you oppose something, something like say financial deregulation, voters see that as being politically aligned with the social policies they also favour. "If this guy is a good Christian, financial deregulation must also be necessary. The same people that want abortions all the time also favour regulation, therefore regulation = bad." That's why they vote against their best interest like healthcare, minimum wage increases and infrastructure funding. Those are all traditionally conservative ideas, politically Obama is Bob Dole, ideas that are now untenable because there is a lack of conservatives in office to reflect that reality. This is only possible because of the intrusion of massive amounts of money now in politics. That is thedisservice things like Fox News do. There is nothing journalistic about that operation, it functions solely as a means of influencing the public discourse in an ever increasing 'conservative' direction.
This echo chamber also influences politics in Canada, unfortunately. I've gone from being a Peter Lougheed conservative to being regarded as a liberal in Alberta because the spectrum has changed. Provincially you are seeing it between the pc's and wild rose, with Wild Rose using some of the same talking points and tactics; establishment politician, liberal infiltrator etc.