St. Thomas More
I think it’s safe to say that most Americans don’t look too kindly upon “flip-floppers,”—those politicians who seem to toss aside their principles in order to please the people. America has a two party system, and with such a political arrangement comes the consequence that districts are almost always going to be divided fairly close down the middle. Most American politicians, therefore, are faced with the challenge that nearly half of their constituents are going to hate them no matter how they vote.
It seems to me that there are three notions to consider here: pragmatism, representation, and ideological consistency. We generally want our politicians to be pragmatic; certainly we don’t want them passing legislation that simply doesn’t work, nor do we want them always acting out of personal honor.
And if we believe that our representatives are supposed to actually represent the constituencies in their districts, if we believe they are to be accountable to the will of the people, then surely we can’t begrudge them doing so. We’re always allowed to voice our opinions and persuade our elected representatives that our personal causes are just and right, but at the end of the day we can’t fault them for following public opinion, even if that opinion is contrary to what they once believed.
And that brings us to ideological consistency. How important is it? I’ve been watching The Tudors lately, and I was fascinated by the story of Thomas More. I already knew his fate, as I had read about him and seen the classic A Man for All Seasons, but I am perpetually fascinated by that man. He believed so fully in the importance of integrity, in following his conscience no matter the cost, that he gave his life for the ideal. If ever there was a character in history who could never be accused of flip-flopping, it would be him.
But Thomas More’s situation was different. He was not an elected official, so the opinions and beliefs of others didn’t really matter to him or his duties as the Chancellor. He was free to be as ideologically consistent as possible. But was he really free? We know he wasn’t, because he paid for his beliefs with his life. No one would have faulted him for taking the oath that Henry VIII required of him. In fact, those who loved him most would have been relieved.
Americans today enjoy the luxury of principles, because sticking to their guns ultimately means nothing. Does it really matter if any of us never waver on our beliefs? Absolutely not. It only matters if you’re in a real position to alter the conditions of the country. If Republicans absolutely refuse to allow any tax increases, then we will default on our obligations and make everything worse for everyone. Is that responsible?
I think not. We have to realize that flip-flopping is not always a bad thing, and it’s actually a good thing in most cases. We don’t want hardcore ideologues in office: we want men and women who understand that life and governing a nation are too complicated for persons to be inflexible.
Politicians every day are required to sacrifice some of their principles in order to serve the common good. I would love for abortion to only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life, but I know that such a law would be a nightmare to implement, not to mention, it would create a gross intrusion of privacy upon women. So I have to sacrifice my principle on that subject in deference to practicality.
I’ve said this on many issues. When Osama bin Laden was whacked, I was able to stand by the principle that killing is never a good thing. On the issue of torture, I can stand by the principle that it is always immoral and never justified. If I were place in those actual situations, however, I’m not sure how I would act. Right now I have the luxury of principles, but I also recognize that not everyone is afforded such indulgences.
Related Posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 -- Rules of the Madhouse Part One: For Democrats
Saturday, August 18, 2012 -- Personal Observations Of Our Society – Where Are Our Priorities?
Friday, November 9, 2012 -- The Voters Who Stayed At Home
Tuesday, July 10, 2012 -- Romney Is Running a Worse Campaign than McCain
Monday, October 29, 2012 -- Who To Thank If Obama Wins A Second Term?
Friday, September 21, 2012 -- Obama’s Middle East Policy – A Debacle in Progress
You took a very noble subject, treated it loftily, then lost me as you dragged it through the mud of partisan politics.
So you want tax increases, and those wascally wethuglicans won’t give in because they don’t know when to abandon their principles?
How about the democrats who think continuing to spend us into oblivion? They too are stubborn and intransigent, dangerously and stupidly so, imo.
Regardless of tax rates, revenue as a percentage of GDP stays stubbornly constant. Anyway, who in their right mind thinks a government that now spends 25% of GDP needs even more money?
It’s the spending.
I would have added one word to your comment sir. “It’s the spending” stupid. Send the two cents whenever you clean out your pockets. Thanks.
Those were mere examples, Silver, not the point of the post. The Democrats are just as bad, but then again all of us here agree on that, right?
You should know by now Silver that I’m not the type to simply repeat what we all say every single day. I doubt that there’s anyone here on Political Realities that would disagree about the intransigence of the Democrats, so why would I spend time droning on about it?
It’s more beneficial and effecacious to turn our critical eyes inward instead of perpetually outward.
I strongly agree that additional introspection can be helpful. As well, reading all types of blogs (which I know you do, Jack). Once we (politically interested citizenry) are able to read opnion that we strongly disagree with without getting emotional or angry we may be able to sway opinion. Short of that we are relegated to singing to the choir. Sure that feels good but it doesn’t accomplish as much as conversion. Not many men or woman want to be lectured, especially by an ideologue. An angry ideolouge has even less chance of swaying opinion.
KP: How exactly do you see this particular piece swaying opinion?
Hi silverfiddle,
Good question. Mine was a general observation. Not meant for anyone specific. I wasn’t suggesting that this particular article would sway opinion. I was sharing my personal observations as someone who has changed my opinion on certain issues over the last fourty years. Those changes usually followed some degree of introspection and personal experience coupled with solid discussion/input from a variety of sources. It could be that my experience is more unique than others, but I am seldom moved off a position by an angry ideologue who is more interested in telling me what to think without at least trying to undertsand how I think and feel. Again, it is a general observation that I have found to be true when I was a child, true as a parent to children, as a teacher, a trusted advisor and as a health care providor. I see similarities in politics as well.
You love stirring the pot, Jack, and that’s what I like about you!
=)
I agree that our reps are elected to advocate for their constituents, particularly (at least prior to 1913) in the House, but with the caveat that it be done under the law of the land, that law being, of course, the U.S. Constitution–in fact, they all swore an oath to do so. The virtual shredding of the 10th Amendment by centralizers in pursuit of what they perceive to be the common good is neither honorable nor pragmatic nor conducive to representative government. BTW, Jack, thanks for your service. I held an NSA TS in the ’60s, army field crypto in USAREUR & MACV.
I agree, Bob, and that’s why I used abortion as an example. It’s fine to believe in the principle that it is morally wrong is most cases, but it would probably not be Constitutional to ban it.
And thanks for your gratitude. It’s always nice to know a fellow spook =)
There is a difference between an evolving opinion and a promise. One shouldn’t promise if one can’t keep it. Bush’s “Read my lips no new taxes” was one such example… he should have either kept his promise or never have made it.
Republicans promised not to support tax increases. I believe they were elected based upon this promise. Break their word and they are not only liars but unprincipled.
It is not so easy to say that a refusal to raise taxes is irresponsible. On the contrary, the Democrats would continue to spend wildly and raise taxes. That is not responsible.
I think you should have left partisanship out of this article because you lost your way.
Killing is never a good thing? Well, I disagree. I don’t think it’s necessarily something we should cheer about.
Partisanship? I’m a Republican for crying out loud. It’s because of partisanship that we’re in the mess we’re in, and I’m advocating pragmatism over partisanship.
There’s a difference for objecting for objecting’s sake and sticking to one’s principles.
Interesting post, Jack. Concerning the idea that the Republicans sticking to their principle of no tax increases is not so good, at least at the present time, let me say this. I am of the opinion that more revenue may be needed to help bring down our deficit and reduce our debt. However, that should not happen without real and significant spending cuts being implemented now. Not at some undetermined point in the future, but now. We can all point to examples of promises not kept by the Democrats. Most notable would be how even Ronald Reagan was promised spending cuts for tax increases. As his son, Michael Reagan, has said, he is still waiting for those cuts. I am willing to see more revenue raised, but not under the circumstances being dictated by the Democrats. If they continue to insist on those conditions, then so be it. The Republicans should stick to their principles and not raise taxes. It does us no good to do anything else.
About flip-flopping, well that’s another story. There are some politicians who always have their fingers in the air, testing the political winds to see which way they blow. Their actions and words are dictated by the direction of the wind. Bill Clinton comes to mind. However, there are instances where people change and come to honestly look at a particular issue differently. There could be a multitude of reasons for that change, most of them honest. When that happens, I usually don’t have a problem with it, even if I disagree with their position. I certainly don’t think less of them because of it.
I agree that cuts need to be implemented now. However, they have to be willing to compromise. After all, what is politics but the process of figuring out which compromises you’re willing to make to further the common good?
As for politicians who always have their thumb in the air, isn’t that what an elected official is supposed to do? Or do we prefer that they tell popular opinion to go to hell and follow their own conscience, even when we don’t want them to?
Well, we don’t want them changing their “political views” several times a week, now do we?
We have had many who were guilty of that. One of those “I was against [insert issue] before I was for [insert issue].
Yes, I think the Republicans need to be willing to compromise, but the Democrats have shown very little willingness to work towards spending cuts. Are we supposed to give away the entire house and get only a small corner in the yard in return? I think not.
Last I heard the Democrats have agreed to about up to $3 Trillion in budget cuts. I think the Republicans are just waiting for the Tea Partiers to see the gravity of the situation before they compromise.
The trouble is, the Democrats are always wanting to trade the promise of spending cuts in the future for tax increases right now. That hasn’t worked out so well for us, therefore my current reluctance.
Exactly. From Popeye via Wimpy:
I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
Trackbacks: