Guest Blogger: Emily Dillhunt

Let me first start out by saying… I’m no government buff. Government and it’s complexities confound me, probably a lot like I would confuse some others if I were to sit down and have a chat about Photoshop or the other tools I use in my art. But every once and a while, I have a brilliant moment where I understand exactly what’s going on and actually feel like I’m not that daft after all.
…This week wasn’t one of those moments. However, I did enjoy what we did in class today when we looked at the political campaign ads, which got me thinking about how exactly politicians go about attracting the popular vote, first by appealing to the extremists. After reading an article by Terry O’Neill titled ‘When Women Don’t vote, Extremists Win”, the tactic we discussed in class doesn’t look so great, when examined more closely.
The theory is that if you can get the extremists by tiptoeing out to the wingtip of your party, get their attention, and win their support, then you can scurry back to the safe midline, hopefully dragging them with you. But O’Neill’s argument calls for action: by appealing to the crowd who believes in taking away any and all rights to abortions in the united states ‘even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect a woman’s health”, eight or more candidates for the 2010 elections said that they would support that viewpoint. Even if these candidates aren’t specifically doing this to gather up extremists, it still made me realize something I hadn’t thought of in class.
When a politician appeals to the party members who are on the verge, they aren’t the only ones listening. If their political stance is more midline, and supporters surround them, isn’t it better to simply appeal to where they honestly stand than it is to stretch the truth so that you can stretch out of your reach and grab some extra support? There are people listening who, had that politician been completely honest, might agree with him, but now that the common ground between them is becoming distanced, might back up a little and back off? Sometimes to appeal to one group (like the always pro life supporters) a politician might loose the support of another group (such as the women’s rights activists). So isn’t it better to just stay where you have the support of the average-stancers, than it is to risk reaching out for the extremists? I don’t believe this is a very good tactic specifically for that reason, but it’s also something I would like feedback on so that I can take it a little more in depth.

((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-oneill/when-women-dont-vote-the-_b_775374.html))