Question
by Jack GrantGiven that there are so many external dangers to the United States (which if the right-wing is to be believed includes an existential danger from Islamist terrorists that I believe has been exaggerated for political purposes), why is it that in pandering to the “Republican wing of the Republican party” the top priorities are to have Congress debate amendments aimed at limiting freedoms, namely an anti-gay-marriage amendment and an anti-flag-burning amendment?
Any rational, non-snarky answers would be greatly appreciated.
Technorati Tags: commentary, current events, opinion
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
Sorry, there ARE no non-snarky answers
By Eclectic Floridian on 06.06.06 18:19
Likely EF is right. But let’s try:
- There are two kinds of issues: real problems and purely emotional issues. (Which allows for some real problems being emotional.)
- Doing something about real problems requires doing something. Which will irritate someone who might be a votor.
- So even if it is possible to address a real problem, it is “politically impossible.”
- But something must be done occasionally to justify to the voters the existance of the governmment.
- The only way around this conflict is to find an emotional issue and introduce a bill on the topic (making a speach can only go so far, after all). Probably the bill won’t go anywhere — but even if it does, it won’t have any impact in the real world so it doesn’t matter. And everybody will forget, by the next election, what was done — and only the people who are emotional about it will remember that anything happened.
So you see, it isn’t pandering. It is a well-thought-out step to address a real problem: that votors expect the government to “do something,” but someone will object to almost anything that the government might do. The tricky part is getting the timing right — close enough to the election that the emotional votors will remember that something happened, but far enough away that they will have forgotten that nothing substantive actually happened.
Yup, EF was right. Sigh.
By wj on 06.06.06 22:21
LOLOL … WF you gave me a huge laugh, thanks!
You also inspired me, so I’m going to take a stab at disproving my own statement.
Given the fact that we (the nation) have been passing laws for 200+ years:
1) Chances are pretty good that there are laws on the books that adequately cover most situations.
2) Actions to adequately ENFORCE EXISTING laws would likely be the most advantageous thrust of government in this time.
3) Our legislators would (ideally) focus on NEW laws only when circumstances have changed to the point that EXISTING laws need changing.
4) Legislation to prevent breaking EXISTING laws is counter-productive when enforcement would suffice.
Did I evade snark?
By Eclectic Floridian on 06.08.06 15:53
*grumble* First comment attempt was apparently scraped into the bit-bucket.
What I said was that your set up of the question was in itself a portion of the answer. Sadly, it appears that these topics are an appeal to the far right wing of the Republican party, in advance of the mid-term elections. They are a waste of energy IMHO for two reasons - (a) I don’t think they will have a positive effect, and (b) there are Far more important ways to spend our legislative time.
By Barb on 06.12.06 17:02