A proposed rule sent Thursday to the federal register recognizes medical uses of cannabis and acknowledges it has less potential for abuse than some of the most dangerous drugs.
US Democrats could have done this a decade ago. They could have codified abortion rights. They could have made so many things a priority: they choose not to. I owe nothing to a failed approach to politics.
I must correct you there. There is a theory that says that politics has to fulfill the will of its average voter. It can not lean further left than that. Otherwise it looses voters on the righter side.
What you have is a convenient and wrong interpretation of how politics work.
Its interesting that when its a step in the authoritarian or right-wing direction, its always possible. When its a step towards humanism or the left, its never possible or only ever an epsilon of progress.
Why do you think that is?
The fallacy thats baked into your thinking that causes you to make this mistake is shown by this assumption you make:
Otherwise it looses voters on the righter side.
The idea that voters exist along a symmetrical distribution is the mistake you are making. People are not randomly coming up with their beliefs and there is no reason you should assume it would follow a gaussian.
Its a persistent and wrong assumption, that resulted in the kind of demonstrated impotence of the American Democrats.
Interestingly, the American Right wing doesn’t share that belief around real-politik. And because they don’t make this wrong assumption, their voters actually get the policy decisions they want into law.
Its interesting that when its a step in the authoritarian or right-wing direction, its always possible. When its a step towards humanism or the left, its never possible or only ever an epsilon of progress.
Why do you think that is?
Because people are, in fact, pretty right-wing authoritarian.
The idea that voters exist along a symmetrical distribution is the mistake you are making. People are not randomly coming up with their beliefs and there is no reason you should assume it would follow a gaussian.
I never said that it was a symmetrical or normal distribution. I am well aware that it is not. But it is still a distribution.
And people do come up with their own beliefs. It’s not as if you can just tell them what to believe. People’s will comes first, parties and their ideas come second.
I must correct you there. There is a theory that says that politics has to fulfill the will of its average voter. It can not lean further left than that. Otherwise it looses voters on the righter side.
What you have is a convenient and wrong interpretation of how politics work.
Its interesting that when its a step in the authoritarian or right-wing direction, its always possible. When its a step towards humanism or the left, its never possible or only ever an epsilon of progress.
Why do you think that is?
The fallacy thats baked into your thinking that causes you to make this mistake is shown by this assumption you make:
The idea that voters exist along a symmetrical distribution is the mistake you are making. People are not randomly coming up with their beliefs and there is no reason you should assume it would follow a gaussian.
Its a persistent and wrong assumption, that resulted in the kind of demonstrated impotence of the American Democrats.
Interestingly, the American Right wing doesn’t share that belief around real-politik. And because they don’t make this wrong assumption, their voters actually get the policy decisions they want into law.
Because people are, in fact, pretty right-wing authoritarian.
I never said that it was a symmetrical or normal distribution. I am well aware that it is not. But it is still a distribution.
And people do come up with their own beliefs. It’s not as if you can just tell them what to believe. People’s will comes first, parties and their ideas come second.