Re:When parties reverse their stance, supporters immediately...
by sk5t on Sunday January 17, 2021 @01:04AM
(#25808565)
You're describing pretty standard "mission creep." I.e. "if the problem this organization exists to address is fixed, fundraising efforts stop and staff must be fired. But we don't want to fire people, so we must perpetually move the goalposts to keep the momentum going." MADD is the classic example here.
Re:When parties reverse their stance, supporters immediately...
by koheripbal on Tuesday January 19, 2021 @01:58PM
(#25837195)
> benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game.
This is exactly how you win elections. If you gain enough single-issue voters you never need to debate the complex issues that might split your base.
It's important to portray the situation as if they are losing. Pro-Choice is a great example. Abortion-right are frequently portrayed as "under attack and imminently about to be destroyed" despite almost every SCOTUS judge publicly saying it's "settled law".
It is a political form of George Orwell's endless war, and the ultimate distraction.
Corporations don't need to fund them directly as politicians are happy to play this game so that corporations can fund THEM directly since the political attention is placed elsewhere.
In fact, there are numerous pro-life groups who directly benefit from moving the ball around but never actually winning the game.
The same is true of race relations organizations, animal cruelty activists, the NRA, etc. With all of these, the spoken platform may or may not be a good thing, but the largest stakeholders would lose tremendous money and influence if they ever actually won.