Special Interest Groups

[tongodeon]

crisper asked how conservatives would react if Barack Obama started pushing an anti-abortion legislation package or a radical roll-back of gun control. He thinks they might turn it into a right-wing scare about arming minorities and encouraging them to breed. I've got an even more cynical theory. I don't think it would change anything at all

Comments

[headlouse]

This problem occurs with any organization whose goal is an ideal, especially organizations who have antagonistic goals. Because their funding is tied to this goal their PR will always have two mouths: one side proudly stating how effective they are; and the other using fear to explain how they are now needed more than ever.

In their efforts to sell themselves and gain more funding they will lie, distort, and create whole new fronts in their battle for their ideal.

This maxim applies not just to special interest groups like the NRA but also to government organizations: like the DEA, whose goal it is to get rid of drugs; as a result, it has been in their best interest to make drugs sound scary and to make drug law stricter so they have more laws to enforce.

This same rule applies to Homeland Security whose job it is to hunt down terrorists; as a result, it is in their best interest to invade privacy and create the facade of the terrorist around every corner-even though "your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered." (Reason magazine).

[tongodeon]

This maxim applies not just to special interest groups like the NRA but also to government organizations: like the DEA, whose goal it is to get rid of drugs;

Counterexample: agencies like the Department of Energy have managed to retask themselves from power generation to weapons to developing weird antiterrorist/antiproliferation technology. Government agencies don't necessarily have to keep going back to Congress to fund the same stuff, but I agree that it happens a lot.

[headlouse]

Well yes but the Dept of Energy's goal isn't a single overarching ideal nor is it in any way antagonistic. Note the contrasting mission statements:

DOE
"The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex."

DEA
"The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets."

The big question here is what if the DEA's goal was less antagonistic with a focus on betterment? What if their goal was more akin to the DOE's goal? Maybe something like:

"The Drug Addiction Administration's overarching mission is to advance the health, wellbeing, and economic status of the people of the United States by combating the negative effects of illicit and licit drug substances, through the use of public education, social programs, law enforcement, and promotion of scientific advancements regarding pharmacology and addiction."