Consult the latest poll. A poll is only a snapshot in time. Sometimes polls render relevant snapshots that can provide true voter insights. Others are simply fodder for an 24/7 news media in need of the latest irrelevant story. Polls at this time are relevant only to the talking heads seeking a seemingly relevant storyline.
Everyone plays the game the same, but it’s simpler, when your proposing new program spending that has some human suffering attached as visible proof of the existence of human need. You only have to disguise the level of need so that if it is a small group and could be addressed by a charity or possibly the proposal will not be a good expenditure, it still has victims. So , if it can save but one life, approve it. It’s also easy to attach favorable expectations to the would be nominee.
If a problem is too small, only state the national number of instances. Remember the mantra, if it saves a single life, possibly, you must approve. Of course with a program there will still be unreached, simply don’t ever mention that number.-A country of 330 million will have a large number of instances of any perceived problem. No where near the largest total of fatalities or victimization found in other circumstances but a large number because we are a large country. (Witness Covid fatalities and Biden’s use of numbers).
Since we all adopted government as our salvation, we have actively sought government solutions to almost all societal issues! Many suburban Republicans ( especially suburban Republican women)will rally their support for any problem solving program because someone is in need somewhere within our country and we are so rich, there can be no need! It’s not fair! Never use cost benefit analysis, always let emotions dictate policy. ( Never let available victims go to waste)( This is the mantra of government salvation syndrome
So if a critical thinker, always ask for the percentage affected by the problem. Can an existing charity or non government group effectively manage the problem? Is there even a real need or will to have a program for this perceived problem? Ask what percentage of the problem will remain post legislation? If the answer to either question is extremely small percentage or if others could handle, there is no need for government solution.
Gun control is a great example of this situation at play in the real world. No one believes we can physically remove even most guns.
Gun laws simply don’t solve the violence problem! There will always be a non compliant or “loose” neighboring jurisdiction say the proponents. ( witness the city of Chicago). Sometimes free people may choose badly and terrible consequences can result.
Bad choices will be made even with strict gun legislation. Is the loss of freedom or inconvenience ( cost ) worth the cost? Then ask the would proposed “ common sense gun laws” have stopped any mass shootings? Are gun control states less violent? Are existing laws even enforced. Will existing guns simply go away? Jot down your answer. Then decide. Remove your emotional bias!
Share this:
