Re: CHAT: "La Bandera Estrellada"

bjm10@CORNELL.EDU wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>
> > (manifestos).  Of course, that stuff never would get on TV, so what you
>
> Oblang:  In the USA, this "manifesto" is more of a "list of suggestions
> that are likely to be completely forgotten once the candidate gets
> elected" more than it is what the rest of the world might mean by
> "manifesto".
Such facile cynicism isn't really an accurate picture of American politics,
though.  It assumes that the candidate really does have well-night arbitrary
limits on his/her power to form the platform.  In the case of George W. Bush,
he is against the platform's exceedingly absolute stance on support for an
ammendment ot the constitution outlawing abortions of any kind, anywhere.
He would prefer, in fact, not to have any constitutional ammendment at all --
and just appoint judges who would try to limit the extent of abortion to protecting
the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest.  If Bush did have as much
power as you assume he has, why not just change it?  That would certainly
go down with independent voters much better than the current platform, and
would be in keeping with the general image he has been trying to create.  The
reason is clear:  he does not have that much power.  He cannot not just on a
whim ignore social pressures like that of the Christian right or other social
conservatives.  So, as I said, "issues" are not usually about the ideology of
individual members of an elite.  That elite can only maintain power by appealing
to its power base, in this case, American conservatives.

Anyways, I think I for one am going to be try to resist any further contributions
to this thread, much as I enjoy them.  There are probably a lot of people who
aren't terribly interested in the obscurities of American political life.

======================================
Tom Wier   |     "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
======================================