From: jf@threel.co.uk (John Fisher)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Publicity
Date: 7 Sep 92 14:54:31 GMT
Organization: 3L Ltd, 86/92 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PY, UK


In article <72049@apple.Apple.COM>,
mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:

> My point:  "Family Values" - as a PUBLICITY TOOL - is designed to distract
> from issues on which the Republicans may be challenged.

I don't think many people would disagree with this.

> Now, we are not currently in times of economic prosperity.  This implies
> the most voters will 'feel' that the system needs a change.  The 
> Republicans have tried to argue that we are not experiencing economic
> troubles - and that didn't work.  They must, therefore, try to cloud
> the issue as much as possible, and they must prevent the other side from
> harping too much on the state of the economy.
> 
> There are several effective tools at their disposal.  ONE of these tools
> is to bring up a debate about morality.  Few things will set off an 
> argument so well.  And it has *worked*  THAT is the point.

Absolutely.  It has worked, so you can expect more of it. 

> Family
> Values is a *non* issue.

Wrong.  It has become an issue for *precisely* the reason
you set out above. 

> They can clean up with some nice,
> patriotic war footage, some foreign policy expertise, and some more war
> footage in October - and that will be that.

It's a horribly likely scenario.

> If Bush wins, he's got four
> more years, and then he's out.

That is true, but the people he represents will
*immediately* start fighting the 1996 election, so that they
can continue their control of your executive indefinitely. 
The person of the president is of minor concern to them. 

> The fundamentalist groups which are 
> making so much noise now *can* ask for more influence, but where, exactly,
> is their leverage?  They don't have shit.  They have some now, because
> their screaming obscurs the debate.  With no need for debate, there is
> no need for their screaming, and there is no leverage.

They have leverage.  They are needed for next time.  They
form an important part of the coalition which put Reagan
and Bush in, and they're needed to put Bush's successor
in.

So long as their ideology is not confronted directly and
(one hopes) effectively, there's always the possibility
of them mounting a presidential challenge of their own,
which would wreck the chance of another Republican being
elected, or of the Democrats deciding that they need to
shift their position on this issue.

In other words, should Bush be reelected, the Family Values
people will be able, to some extent, to influence his
policies.  The pressure will be on for the presidency to
support organisations like the OCA at the local level, and
for federal initiatives against lesbians and gay men,
against abortion rights and so on.  This will happen
regardless of what Bush and his circle think of these things
in the privacy of their own minds. 

And, of course, the same people who put up Reagan and Bush
will want to control Congress, the state legislatures and
the governorships.  Your somewhat frothy expostulations
notwithstanding, it's all part of the same thing, and doesn't
only happen every four years.  The same tactics will do for
all.

The only way to avoid all this is to expose the
irrationality of the "Family Values" nonsense directly, and
to demonstrate to everyone that it is not, on balance, a
vote-winner. 

I don't deny that the *real* problems in the US (as
everywhere, heaven help us) are largely economic, and that
everything else is an attempt to divert attention from
economic failure.  And certainly this point should be made,
and made forcefully.

However, until the "Family Values" ideology is directly
confronted and exposed, it will continue to be a power in
the land.

Excuse my intrusion.  Unfortunately, America's business
is everybody's business.

--John
Newsgroups: soc.motss