Where to begin? Well, it is hard to believe that Republicans once warned us of the dangers of federal deficits. Now Republican leaders and columnists routinely tell us that deficits make little difference, as the Bush administration digs us deeper into debt. In turn, the Democrats, who once assured us of the merits of Keynesian theory and the benefits of deficit spending to “prime the pump,” now fret and strut about the dangers of irresponsible federal spending.
Some will point to Bush’s foray into Iraq as a flip. The man campaigned for the presidency with a promise not to engage in “nation-building.” Remember, when he reminded us of the benefits of being a “humble nation”? There was a time when you could count on Republicans to warn us of the dangers of “Wilsonian internationalism” and of the dangers of becoming “the policeman of the world.” No more.
Then again, maybe the charge that Bush is involved in the precisely the kind of nation-building that he once criticized is a cheap-shot. Bush opposed the Clinton administration’s nation-building in Haiti and the Balkans because he saw no national interest in those conflicts. Whether or not you accept his logic, his case for intervening in Iraq was based on what he perceived as a threat posed to us Saddam Hussein. After all, John Kerry and John Edwards supported Bush’s decision to attack Iraq because they considered Iraq a threat. Now both Democratic candidates act as Bush’s decision was an unforgivable mistake. Flip-flop.
John Dean was once an opponent of the death penalty, but found a way to support it during his run for the Democratic nomination. He also favored raising the Social Security retirement age at one time. Now he finds that idea absurd. Joe Lieberman was once a critic of affirmative action. When he became Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 he dropped his opposition to racial preferences. Lieberman also voted for the same Patriot Act that he now finds a threat to our liberties. John Kerry voted for NAFTA, but now calls for protectionist measures.
Do you know that earlier in his career Dick Gephardt was pro-life? So were Al Gore and Bill Clinton. All are now firmly committed to a “woman’s right to choose.” Gephardt explains his flip by saying, “I listened to women; I and I listened to lots of people and came to a different view.” I think he listened to the polls. It is no accident that you don’t see politicians flipping from the “pro-choice” to the pro-life side of the debate. There is no political gain in doing that.
In the same vein, it is no coincidence that those Republicans who are “pro-choice,” such as Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki, ran for election with constituencies that favored legal abortion. It is also no coincidence that those who are resolutely pro-life tend to come from the “red states” with constituencies that oppose legal abortion. Would some of these pro-life Republicans sing a different tune if demographic changes altered the profile of the average voter in their states? I can’t help but thinking that would happen. That’s what Bill Clinton and Al Gore did, once they began looking for the votes outside Arkansas and Tennessee.
And did you ever think that liberal Democrats would be singing the praises of the military service and courage under fire? Folks who once sang, “All we are saying is give peace a chance,” now never miss an opportunity to recount John Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam. (It is getting to the point that I wouldn’t be surprised if Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe shows up at press conference dressed like Patton.) The same people who went to great lengths to defend Bill Clinton’s maneuvering to escape the draft repeat every rumor they can find about what George Bush was doing in the National Guard during those years. Can there be any other explanation than that they are reversing themselves in order to gain an edge against Bush in the upcoming election? That principle and consistency do not matter?
Why do our politicians act so fecklessly? It is obvious: They all face a moment of truth during their campaigns, a day when political advisors approach them with the likelihood that they will lose unless they change a long-held position. You might think that principle should matter at such a moment, especially if the issue is taking the life of the unborn. But it doesn’t. Party leaders imploring them to keep in mind the importance of Congressional majorities, staffers who will lose their jobs if the election is lost, lobbyists who have given them generous contributions for many years, all make the case that grownup politicians should understand how electoral majorities are formed and the need to work with those who work with them, even at the price of a bit of inconsistency.
The politician will be asked, “Do you still have the fire in the belly to be a winner, Senator?” Being willing to go down to defeat on a matter of principle, for lost causes, can be cast as a noble thing for James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but it will not be seen that way by most politicians at that moment of truth. They flip.
The point? We have to keep in mind what political parties are for: They are organizations formed to win elections. They will change their position on ideological and moral questions whenever necessary to achieve that goal, as they have done over the years on the big issues of states’ rights, judicial activism, protectionism, immigration, and the need for military intervention in the cause of human rights. We have to stay alert to where the winds of change will blow them next..
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
