Quote:
|
Originally Posted by QuikSand
... the position that Jon articulates that there's no room for nuanced positions here? (A side question might be whether there's a political future for nuanced positions at all)
|
Bzzzttt ... that's not exactly what I said, or at least that's not necessarily what I meant.
What I was getting at, or trying to, was as much about what the voters hear if a candidate said "appropriate balance" as what the "appropriate balance" should be.
As I read the question, you basically asked whether a candidate could make this a key point in their campaign and still win. My answer was no, but a decent percentage of my answer comes from my belief that there are scant few candidates who could articulate the phrase "appropriate balance" and have the voters believe that's really what they meant. It sounds too much like a soundbite (which it is and has to be from a campaigning standpoint) for swing voters to put much stock in it and leaves too much room for both disappointing your base and creating ammo for the opposition.*
Libs hear a Dem say it and worry that "he's going to sell us out"
Conservs hear a Rep say it and worry that "he's too damned soft"
Libs hear a Rep say it and accuse "he's a damned fascist"
Conservs hear a Dem say it and accuse "he's not willing to protect America"
In other words, the failure of the position isn't
just about the position, it's also a matter of politics and voter perception of politicians.
It's a losing bet any way you slice it IMO.
edit to add: Upon further review, I think you really hit what I was saying better than I first thought, although not necessarily for the reasons I suspect you think I said it.