As usual, Karl is right on the money.
Here’s how Karl defined “wedge issues”
“These are called “wedge issues” for a reason.
What you personally believe is irrelevant to the political process. These issues are used by the two main political parties to get the electorate to divide on a 50/50 basis - thus leaving them having to persuade exactly one person of their position on some other issue to win.”
Nope, not what “wedge issues” are.
A better definition of “wedge issues” might be something like this, although someone might be able to come up with a better one.
“Wedge issues” are issues that party x uses against party y when party y has taken a position that a significant number of party y’s voters don’t agree with. Good wedge issues are not ones that the country is split on 50/50, good wedge issues are ones where 60%, 70%, 80% of the public has one position and party y has the opposite postition.
The best wedge issue right now is probably transsexuals.
In Maine, and maybe other parts of the country, Pre-op transsexual men can use the womens room in restaurants. The Democrats decided that men were in fact women. In Maine, in the Gubernatorial race, LePage can ask his Democratic opponent, Libby Mitchell, why she thinks that men should use the women’s room. Use the wedge issue, transsexuals, to force the opponent to say something, anything, that will piss off either the crazy homosexual activists or the more normal Democrat voters. The “wedge” goes into the solid block of Democrats, and wedges the sides apart. Pro-transsexual Democrats and Anti-transsexual Democrats are wedged apart by the issue of transsexuals.
I’m not suggesting that LePage use this wedge issue. I’m not suggesting that Republicans use wedge issues this election cycle.
Karl did say a couple things there that are somewhat close to the truth. What he could’ve said, or almost said, was that Republican candidates should not use wedge issues this election cycle, because the tea party’s message of limited government, or “do not like what Obama is doing and will keep him from doing any more of it”, or whatever the core tea party message is, is a winner. And, as is typically the case, it’s important to say on message.
So, talking about anything that isn’t Obama sucks is a dangerous strategy, whether it’s mosques in nyc or gay marriage, because it is a possible distraction from the core message. The core message is simple and powerful enough to win. If it gets cluttered up with islam and gays, people might not remember what the core message is.