From: mattm@apple.com (Matthew Melmon)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re:  Publicity
Date: 5 Sep 92 22:39:11 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA


On the matter of 'Queer Politics' being something other than 'politics,' 
there exists simply some nebulous blob of power - and a pack of screaming
self-interested individuals who want to control said blob.  Some of these
screaming, self-interested individuals will call themselves Fundamentalists.
Some will call themselves Defense Contractors.  Some will call themselves
Queers.  In that each of these groups are themselves composed of screaming,
self-interested individuals, perhaps within their own context there exists
'<name of group> Politics.'  However, we are talking about Presidential
politics, and the workings of all groups at once.  On this field, they
are all playing the *same* *game*  They are all trying to influence 'Power.'

This is rather secondary, however, to the topic of the thread, yes?

To review, the title:  Publicity.

The originations of the thread:  Homosexuals as an 'issue' in the 
Presidential election.  The god-damn, mother-fucking PRESIDENTIAL
election!

My point:  "Family Values" - as a PUBLICITY TOOL - is designed to distract
from issues on which the Republicans may be challenged.  I have said this
three times, and every time, some drooling idiot feels compelled to remark
that I am ignorant of politics.

Again, the Republicans and Democrats are trying to put their guy in the
White House.  To do this, they need to win over the majority of the
population that will be casting ballots.  Is this new to anyone?  Are we
clear on this concept?  Each party must therefore present arguments as
to why a vote should be cast for their candidate, or why a vote should
not be cast for the other guy.  Past elections have shown that the
voter is most likely to be concerned about his or her economic status.
In times of economic prosperity, very rarely is the incumbent defeated.
There is a collective desire on the part of the electorate not to 
'fix what isn't broken.'  Never mind that minority viewpoints may hold
that 'it IS broken.'  So long as those who cast the most votes don't
want change, change will not occur.

Yes?

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.  Jesus
Christ All-Mighty God High in Heaven!  It doesn't have *anything* -
ANYTHING to do with the mother-fucking OCA!  How many voters across the
*nation* do you think know SHIT about the OCA?  Publicity in the
Presidential arena has nothing to to with a regional issue affecting a
minority within that region. 

Within the context of the homosexual community, the OCA is significant.
Within the context of the state of Oregon, it is significant.
Within the context of the Presidential election, it will *not* affect 
who wins the election, and it is, therefore, a *non* issue.  Family
Values is a *non* issue.  The Republican bet is these *non* issues will
keep the Democrats and the Media busy.  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. If Bush wins, he's got four
more years, and then he's out.  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.

In politics, if you have no leverage, you don't play.

Perhaps those who know so much more about politics than I do could explain
how it might be different.

Matthew Melmon