By Dr. James “Jim” Kadlecek
Pounding his fist on the podium at the U.S. Senate, former Sen. Everett Dirksen exclaimed, “I’m a man of the strongest possible principle.” He paused for effect before saying, “and my strongest principle is flexibility!” The senator from
Dirksen’s point was that politics is about compromise. To gain the support (enough votes) to win approval of a bill in Congress, or win an election, a majority is necessary. That means an individual legislator’s or candidate’s opinion must reflect public opinion.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama are being criticized by certain media commentators and by political ideologues on the right and left. The rap is that they have “flip-flopped” on positions on issues.
The critics claim that McCain has altered his position on issues such as the Bush tax cuts, immigration reform, choice and Roe v. Wade, social security privatization, defense spending and his view of the religious right and their involvement in politics.
Obama is taken to task for changing his message regarding public financing of campaign costs, illegal immigration, the pace of troop withdrawal from Iraq, decriminalization of marijuana and abortion.
So, assuming the media critics have their facts correct and are not themselves engaging in political distortion (spin), is this hypocrisy on the part of the two candidates, or is it smart politics, or what?
Consider the audience. During the primary season leading up the official nomination, the candidates must appeal to members of their own political party. A relatively small percentage of the American public was paying much attention during the primaries. Some 72 million registered voters are Democrats and 55 million are Republicans, but only about half of those registered to either party actually voted or participated in the primaries. The people who did vote tended to be the ones who are ideologically committed to a set of conservative or liberal views — the activists.
The general election audience is much larger, more inclusive, broad and moderate. There are about 175 million registered voters, and if the percentage of registered voters equals that in 2004, about 125 million will vote. So, understandably, both candidates are now also focusing on independent (unaffiliated) voters and members of the opposition party who might cross over.
To appeal to this much larger audience, they are both moving to the middle. Smart politics? Certainly. If they want to get elected, do they have a choice? If they don’t moderate their public statements to gain the support of the majority of voters, they will lose, and then who will care what they think? Like it or not, that’s the way the system of single-member plurality (the candidate who gets the most votes, wins) works. Public opinion, reflected by polls and resulting in voting choices, rules.
‘In the gutters’
A president who is ideologically inflexible, never changes his position on issues regardless of public opinion and refuses to consider new information is likely to stick stubbornly to failed policies, even when confronted with facts that prove him wrong. The current occupant of the White House is a great example of stubborn ideological inflexibility, and look at the trouble we are in because of his policies. We are mired down in a war and have huge spending deficits, a lagging economy with a devalued dollar, and American credibility around the world at a tragically low point.
This doesn’t mean we should elect a person who is without principles or without a commitment to certain values that are embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Fortunately, in this election, we have two strong and intelligent candidates, both of whom appear to understand our system and the necessity for compromise and moderation. So far, both of them have performed admirably under the pressure of numerous primary contests.
Don’t be too concerned about the moves to the middle. As President Eisenhower once said, “The middle of the road is the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.”
Kadlecek has lived in