Subject:
|
Re: boulders on shoulders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:19:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
262 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Katie Dokken writes:
> I do get the message and I may or may not agree with some or all of it, and
> my "lack" of participation in the LP has nothing to do with whether or not I
> agree with the message or think that its "convincing or viable". I'm not
> involved in any party at all. I know some people say that its every citizens
> duty to be involved in their government but many of us aren't, though I do
> vote. And unless Bruce is a woman or a minority, just how can he presume to
> know how "we" feel about it?
Fair enough. I should assert outright that a previous post of mine will
probably have hit before this one makes it to the board, so I'm sorry if I
overlap. We've gotten to the crux of your dispute with his post; that he
seems to be speaking on behalf of demographic groups to whose views he has
no real access. If he has done so, and if I have done so, then you are
right to take issue with us. However, for my part, I have attempted to
point out (in myriad posts not all of which are worth citing) that *perhaps*
the LP is composed overwhelmingly of white males because of some (rightly or
wrongly) perceived benefit to them, while women/minority membership is so
small because of some (again, rightly or wrongly) perceived detriment to
them. I would suggest that white males in the LP must obviously see some
benefit to themselves, even if it's "the betterment of all humanity," or
else they wouldn't be in the party in the first place. If others fail to
join because of a perceived shortcoming in the LP platform, then it is the
LP's job to dispel these misperceptions.
In any case, one might therefore ask, as Bruce and I (and others) have
done, why do women and minorities make up such a small fraction of the LP?
This is, and has been all along, the essence of the debate. The reasons for
this can probably be summed up (at least partially) as follows:
1) They've heard the LP's platform and they like it, but they're not
comfortable with Harry Browne at the helm. Very reasonable, given Browne's
free-spirited handling of campaign funding et al, not to mention the tone of
the wannabee martyr evident in much of his propaganda. The oddities of his
campaign strategy are also well documented. It's quite possible that some
level-headed individuals would support the LP if only the LP could put forth
a more respectable candidate.
2) They never heard of the LP: Very possible, given the LP's choice (and
a commendable one, since it adheres to their basic tenets) not to seek
Federal funding for their campaigns. They retain the "courage of their
convictions," but at the cost of national near-anonymity.
3) They've heard of the LP but haven't explored the platform: Also very
possible, and likewise stemming at least in part from the LP's refusal of
Fed funding. This is not to say that women/minorities would summarily
accept the LP platform if they examined it, but rather that they simply
haven't looked into it enough to make a decision one way or the other.
4) They've heard the LP's platform, don't understand it, and thus reject
it. Possible, but not sufficient to explain away everyone. Again, the
fundamentals of the theory are quite simple, so that appropriate reflection
on the issues should allow nearly anyone to form a reasonable conclusion.
5) They've heard the LP's platform, have understood it, and haven't (for
various reasons) committed to a stance. This seems to be your explanation,
and that's fine, since it's good to suspend final judgment until sufficient
data exists to allow a satisfactory conclusion. As above, however, this is
not in itself sufficient to explain the miniscule numbers of LP members--can
it really be the case that 200+ million voting-age US citizens have reviewed
the LP's platform and only 300,000 are able to decide? And only 33,000
willing to commit to the party? This seems unlikely.
6) They've heard the LP's platform, have understood it, and have rejected
it as unsatisfactory. 'Nuff said. If the platform were the obvious "right
course" that some (but not all) LP members purport, then more people would
naturally come into the fold. Not everyone, necessarily, but certainly more
than 300,000 nationwide. Even if it were a matter of "the benefits are
there, but not everyone will see them right away," I refuse to believe that
in the entire US there are only 300,000 individuals with sufficient critical
skills to sift through the LP platform to see the bright future ahead for all.
This leaves us with the white middle class male LP uber-majority.
Obviously these individuals have looked at the LP platform and have found it
agreeable to their own goals, and so they've embraced it. None of the above
scenarios (and you're free to suggest alternatives, since I'm sure there are
many) provides sufficient explanation for the dizzyingly low LP membership
among women and minorities. Admittedly, the biggest problem the LP faces is
its low profile, and, statistically, with wider, credible exposure more
people would likely join or at least vote for the party. However, it's not
enough to say "they'd join the LP if they understood the LP," or "they'd
support the LP if they had the time."
Finally, I would have to point out that bet-hedging assertions like "I do
get the message and I may or may not agree with some or all of it" are
useful in the courtroom but don't really address the debate. However, you
do raise a good point for meta-debate, in that you're tackling the nature of
the argument itself without definitively addressing one side or the other.
Interesting, but also obscuring.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) Now we're getting somewhere! You've spelled out the heart of the debate in my mind perfectly, although I was trying to remove the LP from my portion entirely since I can neither float nor sink the LP stance. -Duane (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) At the risk of starting another thread, I have been reading the posts, but this whole new thing of reading a post, responding, then going and downloading my email, pulling up the emailed link for the posting, clicking on the button to post the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
