The Dutch populist anti-immigration party recently issued a simplified version of their political program, targeted especially at mentally challenged voters….
Interesting enough Immigration is not mentioned in this version of their program.
So what do you think?Is it kosher to target mentaly handicaped people,( who might not have the critical skils needed to understand modern politics)
Or should other political parties follow?
If they lack the critical skills needed to understand politics, maybe they shouldn’t be voting at all.
But on the other hand don’t they deserve representation?
I hadn’t seen this yet, but I’ll definately look it up. The reason Islam and immigration are not mentioned is that the campaign is for the Provinciale Staten elections. This provincial (that’s why your excerpt targets North- Brabant) layer has a few very distinct (and electorally quite uninteresting) issues that it deals with - mostly infrastructure - and thus many of the national hot issues are not discussed in the campaign literature.
Apparently they know their natural constituency.
But it also determines the make up of the Dutch Senate, and that will have an impact on the national issues (Islam, Immigration)
You go fishing where the fish are.
Is it OK for them to be targeted by parties you approve of, though?
and thats the debate I think…
I don’t get it. There is a reference to animals but nothing offensive in there.
:dubious: *…must…not…mention…Palinistas… *:smack:
I see nothing wrong, in principle, with targeting mentally-challenged voters. Presumably, so long as they’re competent to vote, they’re capable of reaching at least some conclusions about their self-interest, and are capable of voting based on it. It’s possible that they might not regard their self-interest in the same way that I would - but the same can be said for plenty of people of normal intelligence.
This being said, I wonder if it’s worth the effort - how many active voters are so profoundly limited that they can’t understand campaign literature written at the level of a normal newspaper article? That’s a strategic question, though, and not a moral one.
My thought as well. Politicians will invariably try to court voters. Either anyone can try or no one can. If mentally challenged people are too naive/vulnerable to be targeted by the far right party, they’re too vulnerable/naive for any party to try to reach them.
I have some mixed feelings about this. My first impression was that this is really stooping low.
But is it necessarily so? These people have the right to vote so what’s wrong with political parties trying to explain their platform at a level they’ll understand? That’s provided of course that the explanation is honest and complete.
In this particular instance I don’t know much about the party but from the article it seems that their explanation of their platform is at the very least incomplete. It doesn’t mention immigration at all so one wonders what else they may have left out. Also, I’m skeptical that animal rights is really a major part of their platform (or if it’s any part at all).
To sum it up, giving as honest and complete an explanation as you can, at a level these individuals can understand, is a good thing. Trying to mislead them through incomplete or disingenuous explanations is wrong. It’s nothing new for politics but it’s wrong, and it seems even wronger in this instance.
It is. In fact they’re pretty strong on animal rights and have even pushed for recognition of animal rights to be added to the Dutch constitution. It just not the platform plank that gets the most media attention.
I stand corrected. I guess I’m guilty of projecting U.S. political paradigms onto other countries. Here animal rights seems to be more a left wing position and not an important plank for any major party.
Sounds like they’re adopting American-style political debates:
“We are nice people, just like you.
Our opponents kill kittens and kick puppies.
They are NOT like you. In fact, they don’t like you.
Here’s a video of a chick with huge tits that says she will vote for us.
If you want to bang her, you should vote for us.”
Isn’t this pretty much what Fox News does?
In Europe, fondness for animals and a recognition of their rights as beings has generally been more associated with the right than the left ( particularly if one counts naziism as radical ‘right’ which is the common shorthand — the nazis had strong nature sympathies and were prone to supporting vegetarianism and anti-vivisection ); with the traditional conservative elements their support of traditional hunting practices gets in the way, but they would claim to be animal lovers — modern conservatism though will do anything that promotes business interests ( such as factory farming ).
As will the established socialist/liberal parties for whom animal welfare has no importance other than as a way of increasing regulations. The proper left does have Green elements for whom it is essential, but in general has never lifted a finger for animals. Which may be connected to the left’s roots in judeo-christian idealist morality which absurdly states that no animal is as important as a human being.
In the OP’s case: I think the mentally retarded, sick or deficient have exactly the same moral right to their vote as does everyone else — and not only is there virtually no difference between them and any other voter, but the end results will be much the same.
If a party I dislike chooses to target them as potentially sympathetic they have every right to do so.
I suspect that the number of potential voters who might be good targets for this kind of a campaign is insignificant.