4 ms·

Without speaking to your overall proposal, which may be strategically sound, I have a few questions on the details: > "but arguments along the lines of ['distr

• rayiner 13y ago
  You have to be careful to distinguish between subjective and objective elements of policy. When couching arguments aimed at particular people, you have to base your arguments on those peoples' subjective perceptions, not the objective ramifications of their ideas. > Which party thinks the government should regulate abortion as a crime and regulate which kinds of partnership qualify for marriage benefits? Religious Republicans don't view this as "big government." You can make sense of the position by thinking about where people think law comes from. Most secularists believe that law is created by governments (though many libertarians espouse belief in "natural law.") If you're a Christian, you generally believe that there is also a higher law that comes from God. Laws concerning murder, reproduction, and marriage, exist, rooted in the Bible, independent of state and federal laws on those subjects. Now, to the extent that state and federal law is consistent with Biblical law, government is "merely" acknowledging inherent law. Attempts to make state and federal law inconsistent with Biblical law are perceived as "big government" attempts to override higher law. > Which party thinks government should be trusted with truly massive budgets to use the US military to coerce other countries Most Republicans perceive defense as one of the few legitimate functions of government. > In practice, I haven't heard of any abuses of surveillance aimed at political conservatives That's more or less irrelevant. > I think this proposal's strategic suitability rests crucially on the distorted image that Republican voters have of the Republican party, and of the overall public discourse. There are two parts to my argument: 1) that the Republican party is a more fertile ground for opposition to surveillance; 2) that privacy advocates need to translate their abstract principles into concrete issues that voters care about. It's the second part that I'm saying is "not cynical," to the extent that there is nothing cynical about trying to find common ground with people whose politics you might otherwise dislike. The former argument is neither cynical nor not cynical--it's just a fact to take into consideration that Republicans trust government less than Democrats, even if they do trust government with certain issues (like defense).
  • jholman 13y ago
    Yes, I'm aware that typical Republican voters typically believe a number of obviously-false things, like thinking "big government" doesn't include a bunch of things that it obviously does include. Including spending almost as much on military as the entire rest of the world put together (44.5% of world total, and btw twice the per-capita budget of any sane country), and using that enormous military to invade countries that do not pose a threat. I'm not even arguing (here) against this military budget, nor the adventurism. I'm arguing against calling it small-government, and against calling it "defense", because it's obviously neither. Anyway, that got off-track. To return to the point, I'm perfectly "careful to distinguish between subjective and objective elements", thank you very much. But given that the subjective elements, on this particular subject, are laughably disconnected from reality, it's pretty cynical to exploit that. I understand the "two parts to [your] argument". I would have thought that was clear. And I'm agnostic on the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. However, I think both parts are cynical.