Sunday, April 30th 2006
Proving my point
Last week, I posted about how setting yourself apart from the political mainstream can put you in a position where people hate you, but only because you’re so different from the norm.
The response to Debra Saunders’ columns demonstrates my point. She is the Chronicle’s token conservative and penned a column questioning the “so-called war on drugs” last week. In the column before that, she wrote about the injustice of mandatory-minimum laws. In today’s letters to the editor, Howard Wise writes:
Has Debra J. Saunders lost her edge? Has she been working too long with liberal journalists, or is she is really a “liberal democrat” (to quote Tom Delay) in wolf’s clothing?
First, she wrote a column on the injustice of mandatory sentencing. Then, a few days later, a column on legalizing marijuana. As a confirmed and proud liberal, I agree with her on both counts.
I used to love to hate her, and now I may hate to love her. Must I now find another right-wing-supporting journalist to rant about over my morning coffee? Debra come back! All is forgiven!
And so begins the progression from “love to hate”, to “hate to love”, to just plain love. This guy may not be convinced all the way, but the most important thing is that he now realizes that the right is by no means uniform. Maybe if the right candidate comes around, he or she can capitalize on this phenomenon.
On a side note, Saunders spoke to BCR a few weeks ago and I thought she was pretty interesting. There is an interview with her in the upcoming Patriot.
Alas, most of those who are “different from the norm” don’t get much attention or coverage these days.
Speaking of abnormal people, we made another piece on this friday’s naked protest. Watch the video on http://www.berkeleyforum.blogspot.com and laugh your behinds off!!! If only hippies had heard of the science of economics!
Comment by Ali Assareh — 4/30/2006 @ 4:52 pm
Patrick,
One prob here is that those who deviate from the standard talking points are perceived as traitors. The other side then typically portray them as having sided with them and it becomes a big media issue. Hence the only sustainable nash equilibrium is where people dont defect which seems to have much empirical backup. Despite disillusionment with Bush, say, relatively few Republicans have, in actuality, “defected”.
Comment by gary — 5/1/2006 @ 10:56 am