That answer surprised me. Then, I was surprised that it surprised me.
When was the last time I had heard a politician say, unequivocally, yes, I am a liberal, or a conservative, or anything else for that matter?
In today’s world of 24-hour news, of political pundits and the access the internet has given anyone to express their every waking thought, it seems anyone whose position depends on public approval is afraid to stand up for what they believe, on either side of the political or social spectrum.
If a person is considered a conservative, they seem to want to soften the term with the adjective ‘compassionate.” If they are liberal, they want people to think of them as having ‘family values.” Both of these labels seek to pull an image to the middle of the road, which is usually farther and farther away from what that person believes.
I find it refreshing when a person says they are on one side or the other of an issue. To say: this is what I think. Even if that person feels differently than I do, at least they are willing to stand up for what they believe in.
It seems that making sure you please as many of the people as much of the time as possible, or at least appear to, is the most important aspect of public service these days. And, as Abe Lincoln noted, that is a difficult position to hold.
I realize people, ideas and opinions can and do change. This is only natural, and a positive thing. We gain insight, knowledge and experience, and our outlook changes. Having a child, for example, changed many of my long held theories on child rearing. Aging has made me realize that you are as old as you are, not as old as you feel. No one is 46 years young, at least not me.
But changing one’s mind is quite different from changing one’s plan or policy simply to pacify those who oppose you. Many times, in our progressively polarized society, national political parties or groups on opposing sides of environmental issues, even groups who differ on how best to feed or educate our children, want to challenge each other simply because they can. These groups may have the same goal ideologically, but don’t seem to want to plan to achieve their goals, but to point out the faults of the plan of the other side.
So, in order to appease the voting or buying or viewing public, policy makers and opinion formers water down what they say and how they say it.
Which leads to compromise.
Not that compromise is necessarily a bad thing, although it has been said that compromise is when no one gets what they want. But there is a fine line between compromise and backing down from our principals.
President Obama ran on a platform which included a major overhaul of our healthcare system. He has at least presented a plan, which I am sure he and his advisors feel is a sound course of action. It has, not surprisingly, met with stiff opposition from the Republican party as well as lobbying groups. That is only to be expected. It is the nature of the process. Our founding fathers would be proud of the national debate, even if some of those vocal debaters don’t seem to be particularly informed.
Another issue the president addressed when he ran his campaign was education. The statistics are grim, children are not receiving the education they need to compete on a global level. And while the government could, and should, throw money at our public school system, inspiring students seems like a no-brainer. The president seemed to realize this, and sought to talk to these kids where they were: at school. There was a plan, which included an address from Obama himself as well as a lesson outline schools could use to help encourage students to see the bigger picture and themselves as part of it. Of course, as it is their first amendment right, people expressed opposition and outrage. They felt the president would seek to further his political agenda by circumventing parents and speaking directly to children.
On both of these issues, President Obama appears to have decided to punt. He seems to have backed down. There is talk of taking the public option out of the healthcare plan he presented. He also watered down the speech he will make to school kids across the nation.
If he is so sure of what he was presenting, if he feels the strength of his convictions, why so much compromise?
When President Kennedy was working toward the Civil Rights bill that was pushed through by President Johnson after Kennedy’s death, he said that debate was a moral issue. Moral – a strong word to use, but completely applicable. Lincoln said, “I hate it [slavery] because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself.” Potent language. Would a politician today express complete opposition to any policy, much less hatred? Thomas Jefferson said men had certain God given inalienable rights, that the truths stated in the Declaration of Independence were self-evident. No doubt was left to how strongly he believed, there was no wiggle room.
Those who voted for Obama placed their confidence in him to achieve change. Which indicates they feel there are things in our country that need to be done differently, and the change needs to start with our government. The president promised these people, the majority of voting Americans, that he would create change. It would be difficult, he said, but not impossible. He would stand up in a current that was taking the country in the wrong direction and steer it to positive change.
Has the current simply become too strong? Has he given up the idea of change in favor of pleasing those who oppose him the loudest, the most publicly? Regardless of whether certain groups agree or disagree with his policies, if he didn’t feel strongly enough about those policies to stand up and fight for them, why were they his policies to begin with?
If someone cannot stand up for their ideas or convictions or plans, it is hard to respect their position. Standing up in the face of resistance is what shapes a person or a country.
If you can’t stand the heat, don’t ask to enter the kitchen. And if you are allowed in the kitchen, don’t ask to turn the oven down.
“Don’t sacrifice your political convictions for the convenience of the hour,” Sen. Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009).
Post a Comment
