Subject:
|
Re: boulders on shoulders
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:15:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
257 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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!
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | LP Demographics
|
| I have to echo Duane on this... GREAT analysis, Dave! While I am not sure that there might have been a few categories missed I don't see that as at the crux... the point is that there are filters you can apply I think you could apply your filters (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: boulders on shoulders
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
