Huddle Up: WEDGE ISSUES
We are witnessing the creation and
dissemination of WEDGE ISSUES
intended to create dissension,
instigate vitriolic debate, and
give the impression of disarray.
Recognizing a WEDGE ISSUE is the first
step in effectively avoiding the trap.
Arguing against the WEDGE is ineffective,
or worse, self-defeting in that it serves to
potentially further the opposition's agenda
of seeking to divide the community.
Truth grenades which explode the false narrative
and re-frame the debate is more effective in
capturing the narrative.
A wedge issue is a social issue, often of a divisive or controversial nature, which splits apart a population or political group. Wedge issues can be advertised or publicly aired in an attempt to weaken the unity of a population, with the goal of enticing polarized individuals to give support to an opponent or to withdraw their support entirely out of disillusionment. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics. Wedge issues are also known as hot button or third rail issues.
Political campaigns use wedge issues to exploit tension within a targeted population. A wedge issue may often be a point of internal dissent within an opposing party, which that party attempts to suppress or ignore discussing because it divides "the base." Typically, wedge issues have a cultural or populist theme, relating to matters such as crime, national security, sexuality (e.g. gay marriage), or
race. A party may introduce a wedge issue to an opposing population, while aligning itself with the dissenting faction of the opposition. A wedge issue, when introduced, is intended to bring about such things as:
A debate, often vitriolic, within the opposing party, giving the public a perception of disarray.
The defection of supporters of the opposing party's minority faction to the other party (or independent parties) if they lose the debate.
The legitimising of sentiment which, while perhaps popularly held, is usually considered inappropriate or politically incorrect; criticisms from the opposition then make it appear beholden to special interests or fringe ideology.
In an extreme case, a wedge issue might contribute to the actual fracture of the opposing party as another party spins off, taking voters with it.
To prevent these consequences from occurring, the opposing party may attempt to take a "pragmatic" stand and officially endorse the views of its minority faction. However, this can lead to the defection of supporters of the opposing party's majority faction to a third party, should they lose the debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue
Reading the above excerpt it becomes
obvious how the WEDGE ISSUES are
being employed to divide the base.
The opposition claims to be "PRAGMATIC"
but we see how it's simply TRIANGULATION.
Socially Progressive, Economically Conservative.
Further reading:
"Wedge" Politics in the 2008 Election
http://www.civilrights.org/voting-rights/election-reform/020-wedge-politics.html
Wedge Issues Take Center Stage in 2016 Race
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/02/wedge-issues-take-center-stage-in-2016-race
We Will Win
= new reply since forum marked as read
Great post! You should cross post in GD-P so more people see it.
Thanks for being a voice of reason!
Divide and conquer
The phrase is attributed to Philip II, king of Macedon (382-336 BC),
describing his policy toward the Greek city-states.
In politics, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer)
is referring to a strategy of gaining and maintaining power
based on the fact that many smaller opponents
are easier to manage than one larger one.
The strategy includes:
* breaking up power alliances into smaller chunks that are easier to subdue/manage
* preventing small power groups from linking up and becoming more powerful
Effective use of this technique allows those with limited power
to control those who collectively would have had a lot more influence.
Sources: http://latinphrases.info/divide-and-conquer/
and who have been talking to others are beginning to take a closer look at his group here and his audience demographics at events. Plenty of photos. I send them here, and they are changing their minds about what drives the BS campaign. The words, racist, privileged, blind, deaf.....are being used more and more by people who are finding out about his support base by visiting here and other venues/forums/blogs ect ect.. Keep fooling yourself. It will help the other candidates for sure....the BS group is changing minds and believe me it's not positive for BS. I will continue to help change minds, every day till the primaries. I promise myself to do that wherever I'm conversing, writing, blogging....it does work you know.....
and races that I know, after coming here and reading how POC are being marginalized, hidden and told basically to STFU with concerns about racial matters and the BS campaign are giving me and other feedback that is not good for the BS campaign. Du may be won, but with 6% AA support, that's likely, after the info from DU is disseminated by myself and others, to drop further. That's all I'm saying. Truly disappointed in a lot of his supporters marginalization and diminishing of the important of #Black Lives Matter to POC here. The treatment of Bravenak yesterday by BS supporters was the grain of sand that broke the camels back. They just can't keep doing stupid shit and expect to get a pass. And they are arrogant enough to feel they should because to those offenders, it's clear, POC who's lives are taken from them violently and with racist intent does not matter to them and they could give a damn less who knows it. That privileged arrogance at it starkest. That's all.
turned around on who and what I'm responding to . My mistake... a few times......sorry
and people are starting to step over the line drawn in the sand by DNC and the centrists. WE will make our voices heard and make changes that will benefit ALL of this Party. Won't stop till I'm dead. Period. I have promised myself that. The events of the last couple of weeks outside this forum and inside has truly shown me how far we've come(????) and how far we have to go to be all inclusive regardless of................whatever.
If I did, I would.
IRL, everyone one I know is already for Sanders, except, as I said, the ones who think Hillary has a better chance of winning the general. I think Sanders has a much better chance and I tell them why.
I am not on black twitter. Anyway, I believe bravenak when she says the best thing Sanders supporters can do on black twitter is to stop defending him. On DU, I think anything I post about him outside the Bernie Group, where everyone is for him anyway, will do nothing or make things worse. I don't think anyone on DU has an open mind about candidates, even under the best of circumstances. I trashed GD
the day I saw them announce it. I go in there only if I have to serve on a jury or I click on something in Latest Threads by mistake.
Also, I do feel that at least part of this is being fueled, on and off DU, by people who are not African American, but who want to divide the Democratic primary vote by race.
People who are switching candidates, who are they going to that's been better on race? Lincoln Chafee?
sanders candidacy as long as it is NOT a personal attack on him. Not HRC, not him, not o'malley. But everything else is fair game. Me, I will keep hammering away for inclusion of all opinions AND RACES, popular with the racists in the sanders group or not. They cannot tell me how to run my campaign in choosing who is going to be the candidate to best represent me in the GE. Just keep putting an opinion out there. As long as it's not personal, it's fair game. That's how I see it and will conduct myself.
You said:
My daughter and daughter-inlaw who are married (and who blessed me with two beautiful granddaughters) are Lesbians. Naturally there is great deal of attention paid by everyone in my family as to discriminating practices and policies locally & nationally and cultural attitudes and it matters politically.
But other policies matter a great deal as well. It happens they are both professional educators in the community and both held in high esteem/regard among their professional peers. They are also active in other realms within the community and internationally, specifically Holland.
I mention all that to say that their sexual orientation does not represent their entire life, or their entire person(s). They're involved daily with a very diverse community professionally and socially in their personal lives.
My entire family (beyond my daughters' family) actually represents so many different levels of socio-cultural "identities" the cliche of "melting pot" certainly applies. And yet politically, my entire family is all over the map. My daughter in law is a bit conservative but a registered Democrat,.. My daughter leans more left and is a Bernie supporter as can be deduced from her fb, but I'm the one considered a "radical Leftist" in the family.. (won't go into all the others in my family)
No one in the family engages on the level of Identity Politics, including PoC members in my family, which I guess is why I don't understand why other people say 'this is my identity', with regard to their Race, Gender, Sexual Preference/Orientation.
For instance, I'm an old Feminist but HRC, Dianne Feinstein, Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann do not represent me or my interests. But Identity Politics would dictate otherwise. So I'm a bit baffled by it when I see and hear others discuss their political issues and concerns or choice of candidates on that level essentially to the exclusion (it seems to me) of other matters of concern. And I wonder if you wouldn't mind illuminating why that is the case.
I'm sorry this turned into such a long winded question. if you have the time to explain, maybe I'd learn something I hadn't considered before now.
Those are great examples
of right-wing WEDGES 
United, We Will Win
We rise together or we fall together 
I encourage every Dem to read it, because it is how Hillary is going to defeat the GOP by pulling off the votes of the so called Soccer Mom who is scared by her own party's woman hating views and just wants to be kept safe. Dems should be reminding the so called soccer mom 24-7 that "her" party hates her. If the GOP keeps this up they will crash and burn like Goldwater. And you know what? This is not a "wedge" issue. Reproductive rights are a REAL issue.
Thanks Cosmic Kitten for reminding Democrats how they will win this one! Hammer the GOP on reproductive rights and equal pay for women and we will win!
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/02/wedge-issues-take-center-stage-in-2016-race
And women's rights have economic consequences!
AFFORDABLE
PAID
EARNED
EQUAL PAY
One who seeks to divide probes along the lines--the fissures, if you prefer--of:
racial and ethnic minorities v. everyone else For example, some of the poorest whites considered themselves superior to all people of color, while some of the poorest people of color considered themselves superior to "white trash." I'd like to believe that being referred to as "white trash" involved a combination of white skin color and bad behavior, but I am not sure about that.
women v. everyone else and/or everyone else v. women
religion(s) v. each other and everyone else and/or everyone else v. one religion or all religions or all religions of a certain kind, such as all Christians or all Muslims or all Jews, regardless of how much diversity, and even bitterness/hatred may exist within any one group
poverty/wealth
class/education/the "right" lineage/social standing/power--not necessarily money, though money may be a part of it.
A "lesser Rockefeller," for example, whose share of the Rockefeller trust may be only $12K a year or zero, but who is still "a Rockefeller." Daughters of the American Revolution. Ditto, across the pond, a "minor royal." In the US, Boston was a bastion, much more so than NYC. See, J.P. Marquand's The Late George Apley. Though without any family money, they can still turn up their noses at, say a Trump. (Think, the Earl of Spencer's eulogizing Diana as "British to the core," being perceived as a swipe at the German origins of the Queen's nuclear family. Yet, he is struggling to finance his estate, ala Downton Abbey, while the Queen and Prince Charles, not so much.) Joe Kennedy Sr. was the Trump equivalent of his earlier years, but, as he intended and worked toward unceasingly, the Kennedy's are now considered "American Royalty." (Remember, FDR appointed Joe Sr. US Ambassador to the Court of St. James). The importance of this particular fissure has lessened in the last century, in the US, anyway. Since at least the 1950s, there have even been attacks on "elites", Ivy League educated people, college educated people ("ivory tower academics"
, etc. Money and power now trump. (pun not intended, except maybe by my unconscious.)
state or regional lines
job/profession lines.
And none of these categories need be totally discrete. Someone may be more kindly disposed to a rich white or a poor white, for example, than they are to all other whites.
Bottom line: "the other" The ones who do not look and sound like we do. The ones referred to in The Preppy Handbook as NOKD (not our kind, dear). The Neanderthals from that other area who just rolled up, looking for food, around the Neanderthals from this cave.
