One of the interesting aspects of
political debates is that it provides an opportunity to compare how
candidates act vs how they speak in a primary. In the hubbub of a
debate this duality can easily be forgotten. We focus on the words,
and we forgot what was done a month, a year, ten years ago. Everyone
that stands on the debate stage, both Democrat and Republican, have a
long history of action (or sometimes inaction). Too often we ignore
this as the debate rages. But its crucial that we compare each
candidates dual accounts of speech and action to determine the true
politician. To do this it might be best to create categories,
instead of looking at each candidate individually. With categories
you can take the information you see and apply it on your own.
If we are comparing speech and action
there are three main categories.
Steady
First there are those whose speech and
action are consistent. Sure, over decades a politician's policy can
change dramatically, but we are looking for consistency within a
reasonable time period. Most obviously, candidates that are
pandering for the primary are not in this category.
Evolve
Next there are those who change
gradually. Normally it's clear which way they are moving. It could
be a move from a radical position to a centrist ideology, or the
other way around. The current buzzword for this in politics seems to
be “evolving”. As in, my position is evolving on gay rights.
Politicians don't seem to like to use the word change, because then
they can be accused of the dreaded flip-flop.
Change
Finally there are those who change
everything. They will 180 positions, like changing from pro-life to
pro-choice. They won't only alter one position but as many as needed
to appeal to the new demographic.
What are the pros and cons of each
position?
Some of us like consistency. It makes
us feel like we know where the candidate is on the issues. It has a
ring of authenticity that the espoused ideas are sincerely held. We
feel that the holder of these views are trustworthy because they have
not deviated in the past. If a candidate has changed their politics
in a short period of time, we can't know if they will hold these new
opinions for long.
Some of us like candidates that change
their mind, as long as they change it to fit our own. Evolving
politicians offer a developing point of view that may continue
progressing. Its like the candidate is saying, “I'm thinking about
accepting X, and if I do then I will consider Y, and finally if I
make it all the way I'll look at Z”. If you already believe Z then
you are more likely to vote for them, even though they haven't even
accepted Y. At the same time, voters who only like X can console
themselves that the candidate hasn't necessarily moved past them. It
is a style that tries to capture a broad coalition without committing
to a centrist or radical position. It also allows the voter to feel
that they are impacting the candidate. It provides a feeling of
control and input on the politician. As the public makes their views
heard they see their candidate move with them, or at least consider
the change.
Look, I'm going to try to be objective
here, but I can't see any positive aspects to a Change Candidate.
But, I'm going to try. The few politicians that succeed in this
style do so in spite of it. They are using this to find a new
constituency. For some reason their previous positions or
constituency no longer suit their purposes. Probably they are trying
to appeal to a larger voting base then before. Or they sense a
change in the political wind. Some voters may find this engaging
because the candidate strongly embraces their new positions. Though
to most it seems phony and inconsistent, to a minority the
candidate's new found vigor and enthusiasm attract voter to
politician.
If we apply these musings to this years
primary we can hopefully place candidates into these three
categories. Looking at this year's primary process it seems that
between the top two Republicans (Donald Trump/ Ted Cruz) and the top
two Democrats (Hillary Clinton/ Bernie Sanders) we have all three;
the steady, the evolver, and the changer. Since I have a preference
for one of the three, I am initially surprised that all three find
success.
Obviously there is much more to a
candidate's success than whether they are consistent, evolving, or
changing quickly in their policy, but it is a critical aspect
especially when viewing the debates. You shouldn't vote for someone
whose policies you dislike even if they fit the category that you
desire. Did they repudiate past action, and should you believe them
if they did? Did they move to become a radical for the primary, even
though in truth they were a reasonable person before the madness
infected their brain?
So its up to you. Who would you place
in each category and which of the three do you find most appealing?
Following are my three categories.
Steady
Sanders
Paul
Santorum
Kasich
Evolve
Clinton (moved from moderate liberal to
the left)
Bush (moved from moderate conservative
to the right)
Cruz (moved from serious conservative
further right)
Rubio (moved from moderate conservative
to the right)
Christie (moved from moderate
conservative to the right)
Huckabee (moved from serious
conservative further to the right)
Change
Trump (changed many policies from
liberal leaning to seriously conservative)
Other (I don't know or they are just
out there)
Carson
Fiorina
The Primary Season
2016:
Comments
Post a Comment