or, Why I Will Vote For the Smoking Ban
In Clintonian phraseology: It’s the framing, stupid.
As I’ve written previously, I am conflicted about the smoking ban, to the point that I have now decided that I don’t really believe one way or the other about the issue. So I have to find something “beyond belief” on which to base my vote.
I’ve also noted that the issue is framed differently in Amarillo than in Austin, where a similar ban is on the ballot. In Amarillo, the anti-smoking ban forces argue that gubmint doesn’t have the right to tell people how to run their businesses. This argument is nonsensical on its face since government does in fact impose all kinds of health regulations on the very sorts of businesses that will be affected by the smoking ban.
It is also important to note that, for good or ill, the issue was passed on to the people. So, it’s not precisely “big government,” but The People who will be regulating these businesses. The question becomes: Do The People have the right to impose restrictions on businesses? Another factor that influences my decision is that businesses in Amarillo—as everywhere—are, more and more frequently, Applebee’s rather than Roasters. More and more new bars and restaurants are anonymous corporations rather than cozy small businesses run by our local neighbors. Do The People have the right to regulate nameless, faceless, soulless corporations? Do we privilege The People over Wal-Mart?
In Austin, it’s a civil rights issue. Individuals who go to a bar to listen to a band have the right to fully participate in the bar/live music culture— a culture which includes smoking. In Austin’s system, the referendum touches on questions of mob rule. Do The Masses have the right to impose “popular delusions and the madnesses of crowds” upon individuals?
I believe the founding fathers might have answered these two questions differently. I know I do. So—in the absence of other deal-makers or deal-breakers—I find that framing is a valid basis for determining a vote. In such a situation, one is not being manipulated by the frame, but is utilizing it.
Oh, the postmodern places you’ll go! Specifically, into structuralism, which
examine(s) the underlying relation of elements (the 'structure') in [for example] a story, rather than focusing on its content.Sometimes politics, and the power exerted therefrom, is only about relations—the “bedfellows” of political cliché. In this case, I would prefer to align myself with those who would reign in hypercapitalistic corporate power. If Amarilloans cared about civil rights, the issue would have been framed that way—and my vote would be different.
SPACEDARK
|