I've been thinking about this for a few days. And I have a couple of questions
1. How is the formation of this group, and open support of sportsmen joining this group any different that simply openly supporting that candidate?
Just in from a week in the Idaho backcountry and thankfully without any wi-fi or cell service.
Since you quoted my post, I'll assume this was in response to that post. To your question raised by my comment, I don't think support of a group such as this is any different than openly supporting the candidate. That is why you don't hear my say, "Vote for (insert here)." Once you do that, you are tying yourself to a candidate, which takes you down the whirlpool of implicitly supporting a party.
You may read or hear me say that "so and so" is terrible on public lands, etc. But, it will be a factual statement, based on their voting record, in the context of the policy position. Just bad outcome for the candidate who is bad on the priority policy in question.
2. If there is none, and the argument is made that politics are personal and shouldn't be shared at all, then I would counter that for people of influence, who would like to use that influence, there are benefits of sharing their politics and the rational behind them. Simple exposure to new ideas, like the importance of wetlands and clean water vs bump stocks and 30-round mags, can force people to think harder about their vote and who's getting it.
I think there is benefit in sharing one's positions
and not confusing positions with politics. That can be done.
When one makes it political, I feel I am making the decision that it is somehow binary; that I have to choose one or the other. And, that it only matters at election time.
I can vote for a person I don't have agreement on for every issue, if they have a better net sum on my priorities than their opponent. I can also light them up if they are on the wrong side of an important issue, as I don't feel beholden to someone just because I assessed them to be a better candidate than an opponent.
And sometimes I vote for someone who loses and I am force to try work with the winner who I did not vote for. If I make it about the politics/person and not about the policy/position, I have no chance to work with that person who I did not vote for.
I think too many Americans think that engaging in government is a "one day, every four years" type of endeavor. As such they put all their eggs in the basket of their vote, rather than engagement. I see it by how few people actually engage in issues, compared to how many rant on FB or other places about who won/lost the election. Governance happens year-round, not just the first Tuesday of November on every fourth year.
I think people of influence would be better served using that influence to ask their audience to be more engaged between elections. People of influence should quit worrying about being on the "winning team" and worry about engaging in government such that whoever is in office, the important issues get heard. To me, using my platforms to advocate for a deeper approach to governance and citizen engagement is far more important than using the platforms to stump for a candidate who, at best, might agree with me 2/3 of the time, at worst, disagree with me on one of my top two priorities.
To simply be for the party of hunting and fishing and conservation is a great slogan in the abstract, but when it gets down to brass tacks and individual candidates often the choice isn't as clear, or maybe it is very clear but in completely different ways for different people.
I don't view that as a slogan in the abstract. When it comes down to brass tacks, I compliment and criticize based on the positions/actions said elected official demonstrates on hunting, fishing, and conservation. It is not even slightly abstract, rather real life. I have complimented publicly and personally many people I didn't vote for, as they did the right thing for those issues. And, I have taken to task some I have voted for when they have not done the right thing for those issues. In doing so, it might cause hard feelings and cause me to not be a "trusted team member." Fine.
It is never clear. In this thread it has been pointed out that depending upon your highest priority issues, the best candidate will vary. My issues are usually 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), and 2(b), with hardly any gap between my priority in those four issues. I'll never find a candidate that is perfect on those four. So, I vote the best option and engage on the four issues, no matter if the person receiving my vote wins or loses.
Now I still understand if a person of influence would choose to not use that to promote any politics. That maybe in their eyes more can be done to push individual legislation by staying neutral. But I don't see how it can be argued that seeing someone you look up to take a political stand doesn't push the public opinion in that direction.
A political stand, i.e. a policy stand, doesn't require require a candidate endorsement or joining "Sportsmen for (insert here)." Doing so confuses the difference between a policy stand and a candidate/party stand. At least in my mind, two very different "stands."
