Short term vs Long term (aka common sense vs uncommon sense)

[Az]

This seems to be a recurring issue in the political arena. Do we go after the short term gains found by following public opinion? Or do we take stands on issues we believe to be true despite the seeming public opposition?

The short term approach seems to be the common sense one. You can't make policy if you don't win elections. Thus it makes sense to only go after issues that we can clearly win in the court of public opinion.

But this puts the Dems in a following condition. The party does not introduce ideas or ideals by following public opinion. Thus it does not change the public awareness and is instead formed by public conditions. It is no way to lead.

A further issue is found if you talk to people who can no longer bring themself to vote for Dems. A common theme is that they do not trust Dems. It is the fact that they don't know what they stand for any longer. They give voice to issues they believe the polls support. People will even vote for Repugs despite disagreeing on many issues simply because they know where they seem to stand. The right has invested a great deal of effort establishing the issues the GOP stands for. And few repugs will break from that mantra.

The short term game plays into this problem. By only standing up for issues that are currently politically viable people get the sense that the Dems are simply politicians chasing after votes rather than leaders ready to guide this nation to some vision of grandeuor.

It is not common sense that people want as much as it is the wisdom of uncommon sense. People want someone that stands for something. People want leaders who seem to know where they are going to lead the nation. A leader doesn't simply tell people what they want to hear. They show people why the things they are saying are what the people need to hear.

[Az]

1. Self kick

:kick: