Politics on the ELK Talk podcast

[Nunyacreek]

I was interested in the political labels discussion on the Elk Talk pod cast this week. In short, as best I recall Corey Jacobson had referred to something as a “Liberal policy” (this was a little unclear) and a listener wrote in to caution him that these labels were not helpful. The listener’s scolding was itself a little bit snotty, I only remember the term “reductionist”
First, I would complement Randy on his equal opportunity political criticism. He is extremely careful to focus on issues and not positions, and it’s really notable. Randy also did a good job bringing the discussion back around to this point.
Conversely I left feeling like maybe Corey didn’t quite get it; sort of stuck in a traditional paradigm where one party or the other would represent all of one’s opinions. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that many of us in the hunting and outdoor recreation community are not well represented by the broad strokes of either political party. Corey seemed to want to “call a spade a spade” but I think the point is that you can’t always call a spade a spade.
A Conservative policy may not be a policy that is “tending or disposed to maintaining existing views, conditions, or institutions. “ … as evidenced by the GOP platform plank to dispose of and return Federal lands to the states. Likewise, restrictions on hunting and trapping and firearm ownership in Democrat controlled Oregon do not strike me as “willing to accept or respect behavior or opinions different from one’s own”
I think Corey’s point was that regardless, certain policies labeled as “liberal policies” or “conservative policies” may indeed be associated with D and R politics. However, there is no guarantee that another so-labeled policy from the same group might tend to support or diminish your right or just as important your opportunity to hunt and fish and recreate outside.
All in all the discussion was a good reminder that these sorts of labels are not only unhelpful, they can be profoundly unhelpful, encouraging us to be lazy in our thinking and rely on shortcuts that don’t really hold up.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

As someone who's personal ballot is constantly painted a beautiful purple, I think Corey was trying to state that unfortunately, in this day and age, lines have been drawn and its kind of hard to find politicians, who they themselves, vote according to what they believe and not just the broad stroke of their party. For example, he listed that democrats can't be pro 2a, pro hunting and pro life. Which is probably true not many D's are all three, but there might have been a time where a Democrat was completely pro choice but also pro 2a, pro public lands, and pro hunting.

Even though I believe that Corey definitely skews more right than Randy in terms of his public comments; reading between the lines I think he was trying to say that the D and R camps have moved so far to each side of the center that there isn't much of a common ground anymore. and the party pressure to vote along party lines has made it so that there definitely isn't common ground or places for politicians who vote based on what they think is right, instead of what their other party members believe.

All that said, it made me wonder whether there is a gap in the conservation, hunting and angling community for a group of more liberal leaning advocates for 2a, public lands, hunting, etc. Maybe there is and I am not aware of it, but I feel like there could be quite a powerful group of voices out there that is not being organized and brought together that could be reaching out their democratically elected liberal representatives and voicing their opinions on these issues. That was the biggest thing bugging me in walking away from this podcast.

 

[more_cowbell]

I think he was trying to say that the D and R camps have moved so far to each side of the center that there isn't much of a common ground anymore. and the party pressure to vote along party lines has made it so that there definitely isn't common ground

That's interesting, there's a comedian with a netflix special (Colin Quinn, "Red State Blue State") who quipped that our country has been going for well over 200 years, but there are still only two political parties.

Perhaps if there had been more than two by now (I'm not advocating either way), the apparent polarization today between the Ds and Rs might not be as acute. Remember that guy Ross Perot? With the charts? In recent memory he may have been the only potential third option that materialized on the national stage, at least for presidential debates. Can't remember if he was affiliated with an actual third political party, however.

 

[Scott85]

Conservative and liberal have different meaning.

A liberal bag limit would allow for the taking of more game. Or maybe Montana liberal policy on issuing tags to non residents.

On the other hand a conservative policy would be limiting on say tags or bag limits.

 

[Tradewind]

They're still doing Elk talk??

 

[Nunyacreek]

MtnElk I think I’ll listen again and see if I hear what you hear. I respect Corey a great deal and maybe I was too quick to assume that. His point about polarization and party affiliation is correct for sure. Been a long time since there was a Bull Moose Party.

 

[longbow51]

Remember that guy Ross Perot? With the charts? In recent memory he may have been the only potential third option that materialized on the national stage, at least for presidential debates. Can't remember if he was affiliated with an actual third political party, however.

He was and he wasn't. He was just a smart guy, self made gazillionaire. Before he ran for President, he became famous, or infamous, depending on your outlook, for being the primary driver of the No Pass No Play rule in Texas. If you weren't passing your regular classes, you couldn't play football. I remember this so clearly because it was a huge issue at the time. This was in ancient times when a student had to master certain tasks in order to pass classes, for those of you who are confused; what is this "pass" of which he speaks?

He ran for President along with GHWB and Clinton, took 19% of the vote, handing the Presidency to Clinton.

His major issue was NAFTA, which he said would result in a "giant sucking sound" as jobs went from the US to Mexico. And he was correct.

He did form the "Reform Party" later but never had much clout following the result of the previous election.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

That's interesting, there's a comedian with a netflix special (Colin Quinn, "Red State Blue State") who quipped that our country has been going for well over 200 years, but there are still only two political parties.

Perhaps if there had been more than two by now (I'm not advocating either way), the apparent polarization today between the Ds and Rs might not be as acute. Remember that guy Ross Perot? With the charts? In recent memory he may have been the only potential third option that materialized on the national stage, at least for presidential debates. Can't remember if he was affiliated with an actual third political party, however.

2 party duopoly is a feature of the system, not a bug. The 12th amendment almost guarantees that a third party cannot be successful in our elections.

 

[more_cowbell]

2 party duopoly is a feature of the system, not a bug. The 12th amendment almost guarantees that a third party cannot be successful in our elections.

Some would argue it results in a buggy system, or now has helped lead to polarization, and lack more choices for people "closer to the middle" of the spectrum. Money and special interests keeps it a two party system and mainstream media on both sides have commercial interests to answer to. But that's life, money wins.

 

[Bullbrl]

Some would argue it results in a buggy system, or now has helped lead to polarization, and lack more choices for people "closer to the middle" of the spectrum. Money and special interests keeps it a two party system and mainstream media on both sides have commercial interests to answer to. But that's life, money wins.

The polarization of this country right now is intentional, it's not a bug. A united country demands more of its leaders and won't let them get away with things that they are able to right now. Fighting amongst ourselves takes attention away from other things, this isn't by coincidence.

I would say we all have a lot more in common than we don't but that can't be talked about, it's all about division.

 

[more_cowbell]

The polarization of this country right now is intentional, it's not a bug. A united country demands more of its leaders and won't let them get away with things that they are able to right now. Fighting amongst ourselves takes attention away from other things, this isn't by coincidence.

I would say we all have a lot more in common than we don't but that can't be talked about, it's all about division.

Good points. People were fairly polarized before "the pandemic" which then turned things from a grease fire to a dumpster fire. There are a lot of nutters out there on the fringes, fanning the flames, and media is helping so they get more viewers or clicks, which results in more money.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think we like to place labels because it just makes it easier. “He’s a liberal” or “she’s a conservative” helps us avoid the difficulty of nuances. Unfortunately it is difficult to vote on nuances. You have to place your vote and get engaged. Particularly if you feel more in the middle or want to see action rather than arguing you have to send emails and make your voice part of the conversation. The extremes on both sides tend to drive the conversation, and neither has a monopoly on stupid ideas.

 

[grainhog]

it made me wonder whether there is a gap in the conservation, hunting and angling community for a group of more liberal leaning advocates for 2a, public lands, hunting, etc.

In general, in the interior western states, republican legislators are who propose bills to divest public land holdings, limit access, and privatize wildlife. And while I suspect few to no democratic legislators can be expected to go to the mat to preserve access to any kind of firearm one can concieve of, to suggest that their objective is to take away everyone's hunting rifles is, IMHO, either fear mongering or paranoid delusion. Almost every hunter I know in Montana is in the group you're describing.