Wedge Issues

I have been meaning to write a post about wedge issues (with the usual delays and procrastinations) when commenter Fritz obliquely brought up the issue. So I went a lookin and found this. So - procrastination over.

Carl Paladino, Tea Party darling and New York Republican gubernatorial candidate, went on a shocking anti-gay rant, telling a group of Orthodox Jewish leaders that homosexuality is unacceptable.

Speaking in Brooklyn Sunday Paladino claimed that children should not be "brainwashed" into thinking that homosexuality was a "valid" or "acceptable" option.

Paladino's harsh words proved to be a stunning example of homophobia. Paladino's tone and words serve to foster and perpetuate a hostile environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (lgbt) people.

I believe the days of wedge issue politics are numbered. Why? Well there is a tale in that.

To start it is always wise to know what you are talking about.

A wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which splits apart or creates a "wedge" in the support base of one political group. Wedge issues can be advertised, publicly aired, and otherwise emphasized by an opposing political group, in an attempt to weaken the unity of the divided group, or to entice voters in the divided group to give their support to the opposing group. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics.

Wedge politics are the key to understanding the behavior of both candidates and voters during political campaigns. Among the voters most likely to be responsive to campaign information are those with conflicting predispositions--partisans who disagree with their party on a policy issue. For these cross-pressured partisans, campaign messages from the opposition can be persuasive if they are focused on the incongruent issue.

Of course this kind of thing could backfire. In fact it often does. As it did in Illinois in 2004

Currently Wisconsin is also embroiled in a culture war.

The economy has dominated the debate in the race for governor, but groups opposing abortion and supporting reproductive rights say the stark differences between the candidates mean results of the Nov. 2 election will have repercussions for years to come.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democrat in the race, and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, the Republican, have spelled out their positions over the years, and groups on both sides of the abortion divide say the distinctions are clear.

"We look at Tom Barrett as a retread of (outgoing Gov.) Jim Doyle on our issues," said Susan Armacost, legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

Walker "is really out of the mainstream when it comes to basic health care for women," said Tanya Atkinson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin.

OK. Republicans are doing again. I knew it couldn't last.

Despite these examples (and how the two races turn out and the exit polling afterward) I think this tactic will get deep sixed. Why? Well to figure out that question we have to look at why wedge issues are used. That is not to hard - it is used because there is not a dimes worth of difference between the major parties on general issues - you know - one party wants socialism hell bent for leather. The other party is not quite in such a rush. Some choice. So you need wedge issues to crank up your base and maybe gather a few votes from the other side.

The down side is that you get a culture war. Straights vs gays. Dopers vs alkys. Pro abortionists vs those who prefer a black market in abortion. And on it goes. And you know this kind of thing works. In some places at some times. And when it does the outcome is always ugly. How do I know? Because it has worked before in Germany against the Jews. In fact it seems to be happening in this country against gays. Just suicides so far. I'm not encouraged. Still. I don't think Americans will stand for this. It is not in our nature generally. Most of the time. People who push this crap are playing with fire. Why? Because there are some of us who would rather vote bankruptcy than culture war.

And with all the economic issues on the table a "Culture War" is unnecessary unless you have nothing generally different to offer. I don't care who the TEA Party darlings are, if they are culture warriors I will work against them with all my power. So - Thanks Fritz!

Because I will be God Damned if any of these bastard sons of bitches are coming after any one, because Jews will always be on that list sooner or later. Which is why I take this sort of thing personally. And why Republicans have such a hard time attracting Jews. You stupid fucks.

OK. Deep breath. Anyway I think this will end in time because unity on financial issues is the most pressing issue now and we will not have a culture to fight over unless we get our economic house in order.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 10.11.10 at 09:43 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/10175






Comments

Didn't see your post before I wrote mine.

What some candidates forget is that it's a mistake to see this issue simply in terms of the number of gays (who are few in number), because the issue resonates with people who are not in the least gay, but who want to be left alone, and see it as a freedom thing.

It's a wedge issue that does not necessarily work as planned, and it can have repercussions beyond the ostensible race involved.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 11, 2010 10:02 AM

Eric,

This is true, but the paradox is that people who want to be left alone also want to leave other people alone. This provides a political vacuum into which activist busybodies step and begin to interfere with those who just want to be left alone.

Never trust any activist who agitates for a "cause," regardless of how "just" the cause might appear.

T   ·  October 11, 2010 11:23 AM

At a lunch get-together last Wednesday, about 15 gay friends and I got around to discussing politics and the California governor's race.
Of the group about half are Democrats, and the rest of us either Republicans or decline to state. I was odd man out because I intend to vote for Meg Whitman. Everyone else, even the Republicans, brought up her support of Prop 8.
Here it is from the Sacramento Bee:

"y Jack Chang
jchang@sacbee.com
Published: Saturday, Aug. 21, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
Last Modified: Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010 - 9:05 am

SAN DIEGO – Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said Friday that she would defend voter-approved Proposition 8, which prohibits same-sex marriage, if she becomes governor next year."

This was an unforced error on her part. The job of enforcing state laws is up to the Attorney General, not the Governor. But to appease the religious right, and that includes a majority of registered Republicans, she had no choice. So, I have the choice as usual of voting economic vs. social issues. This time I'll hold my nose and vote economics. The rest of my friends won't. So just how many people do Republicans turn off by the wedge issues?

At a time when gay teenagers are killing themselves, you'd think the assholes Republicans would enough sense to keep their fucking mouths shut.

Frank   ·  October 11, 2010 02:46 PM

Frank,

The California Republican Party has been a millstone around fiscal conservatives since forever. They keep losing elections and can't seem to figure out why.

Here is a Democrat who talks about what is wrong with both parties in CA and also lands a solid blow on voters.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/we_dont_do_numb.html

M. Simon   ·  October 11, 2010 04:34 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


October 2010
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits