Quote:
Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie
So, I think you seem to be saying that no single person should have so much influence on politics - is that correct?
I personally don't have a problem with a single person having such a large influence on politics as long as the influence is in the arena of ideas and speech - (i.e. not in the illegal arenas of fraudulent voting, violence, coercion, etc.). Dobson's influence is powerful because people agree with his message. Other than countering Dobson's message with a better message, how exactly do you propose that Dobson be taken out of politics?
|
I don't like the idea of a person whose sole purpose is the advancement of a religious (and nearly theocratic) agenda having so much control over our party and our politics.
As you hint though, if that control is by virtue of the support of millions of Americans, then the control is democratic and therefore fairly legitimate. And one would hope that our system would prove its integrity by preventing this person (or any other) from advancing his agenda beyond what is legally allowed, regardless of how much support he is able to rally for his cause.
Now the question becomes, if, for example, some Republicans don't like Dobson's influence over their party (and it is difficult to overstate his influence), then what is the recourse? Well, can't get rid of the guy. We certainly can't silence the guy. That's just unAmerican. But we have to send a message to those in power that we don't want this man controlling our party. We do that with our votes.
This is why -- if you reject the Dobson influence and social-issue-obsession of the new improved GOP (and obviously not everyone does) -- it's so important to make sure McCain/Palin ticket is defeated. I honestly believe that if McCain/Palin win, the Republican Party is lost for another two decades. As long as they can win on a platform of big spending, big war, and appeal to Dobson, they will continue to run on that platform.