I am really curious to see what happens as a result of the Washington D.C. decriminalization of marijuana. The US Congress has oversight responsibility for the district and the Republican majority has come out against it. They passed a law barring any use of funds for the new policy.
But here is where I get curious. There are a few GOP presidential candidates who cater to both the libertarian and conservative electorates. Libertarians are pro legalization but conservatives are against it. So what is a GOP candidate to do? How can you pander to these two completely opposite views?
- They can try to word a communication that is ultimately vague and wishy washy.
- They can come out on one side and try to placate the other side afterwards.
- They can come out on one side but try to word it in a way that pretends to have the values of the other side (try to word a pro-legalization position in a way that promotes conservative values – or vice versa).
- They can send totally different communications to the two populations, praying that their voter profile data is accurate, that no one will hit any of the social sharing buttons, and that no one in the news media will find out.
I would love to be hired as the content development consultant for #3. It would be a huge challenge, but pulling it off would be a great application of the self-delusion that I am always talking about. The other side would "want" to agree with their preferred candidate. So if there were any threads of conservativism in the pro position or libertarianism in the anti position, they could grasp it with both hands and hold on. Weaving a narrative that ignites the self-delusion instinct and muddles the gap between the two positions . . .
Anyway, it would be fun to try.