--- "Mr. WD" <mister.wd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It depends on how you frame your argument. If you
> end up arguing, in
> effect, that the guy who's doing a life sentence for
> shooting a cab
> driver in cold blood after he robs him is really a
> political prisoner
> and the victim of a racist and genocidal justice
> system then sure --
> you're not going to win over any hearts and minds.
>
---snip>
> In short, I think one can make a compelling argument
> that
> incarceration in the U.S., in addition to being
> unfairly punitive,
> contributes to the types of social problems that
> breed the criminal
> activity that scares hard working, middle class
> folks.
[WS:] No disagreement here. It strikes me as odd, however, that a marginalized political faction striving for recognition and political relevance should embrace this issue as its key political agenda.
It is counterprductive, because whathever the left has to say on this subject will be immediately dismissed by the mainstream as an attempt to exonerate criminals - which you admit is counterproductive.
A better way is to adopt an agenda that has a chance of winning hearts and minds regardless of who is promoting it, like for example health care, employment opportunity, living wage, educational opportunity, quality of life etc. The advantage of an agenda centered on such issues is not only its appeal to "hearts and minds" of the majority of the population, but that it addresses the root causes of criminal behavior i.e. prevents people from going to prison in the firts play rather than merely demanding leniency for those already there.
To put things in a slightly diffrent perspective, priosn reform is a suitable for an interest group that has been already recognized as a legimate guardian of public interest, especially in the area in question. That may include foundations, churches, even conservative think tank that can bestow their legitimacy and recognition that they already accumulated on the issue that may be lacking that legitimacy. By that logic, Nixon could reach out to China and get a credit for that, while a Democrat would be eaten alive for that.
However, a political grouping that lacks such legitimacy in the first place (cf. the US left) should use a reverse process. That is, it pursue issues with already established legitimacy and popular recognition to acquire legitimacy that way. It makes common sense. A successful politician or for that matter salesperson will try to gain my confidence by agreeing with my point of view and tastes and then going with his sales pitch, instead of throwing in my face what I may find objectionable and then trying to sell me something.
I suspect, however, that many lefties are in it merely for the thrill of creating ruckus and being in other people's face and really do not care if that accomplishes anything politically.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs