fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
> I still think you are missing the point. By itself, politicians could
> influence adoption laws and practices. But there are costs imposed by
> many things: the ability of adoption workers to wage a political
> campaign for the status quo, the mobilization of allies, the opportunities
> lost while fighting adoption laws and the fact that not a single
> major electoral victory as ever been won over adoption law.
>
> It's as simple as this: people don't vote over adoption law. If someone
> tried to campaign on it, I bet they'd get trumped by somebody campaiging
> over issues that are proven vote getters.
But politicians spend a lot of energy working on issues that no one has
ever lost an election on. To take one tiny example, both Bush and Gore
made a loud point about their support for the Community Reinvestment
Act. Who votes on that? The logic, I presume, is that positions on a
lot of little issues add up. And it isn't the absolute size of the
issue, but the size relative to the effort that counts.
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the
true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to
enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he
should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei,
with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings,
and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule
what he cherished and held sacred."
Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
