A Political Dilemma

In the midst of a heated election, candidates often get charged with waffling on the issues or being out of step with the electorate. A candidate’s instinct is usually to deny both charges, but I’m not so sure that’s a good idea.

Let’s assume the American people were 98% in favor of Frosted Flakes with 100% of the original sugar content added. You can bet that every candidate will come out in favor of “full sugar content” for every cereal. However, suppose a month later, fueled by the release of yet another scientific report indicating sugar is unhealthy, the American people drastically change their view. Let’s say, at that point, 65% of people actually favor the “1/3 less sugar” alternative. What should a candidate do?

If a candidate announces support for the “1/3 less sugar” option, that candidate will immediately be accused of waffling and flip-flopping on the issue. If, however, a candidate retains his or her support for the “full sugar content”, he or she will be labeled “out of step with the American people”. It’s a no-win proposition!

This raises a fundamental question: Which do we want, candidates who waffle or candidates who are out of step?

The argument can be made that an “out of step” candidate would make a worthy leader because of his or her ability to make unpopular choices in times of peril, especially when what is popular is not always the best course of action. On the other hand, a “waffling” candidate fulfills the most basic premise of a democracy – that a country's leaders carry out the will of the people. If the collective wisdom of a country shifts, it would seem that the decisions of its elected representatives ought to follow suit if democratic principles are to hold any meaning. In the end both choices carry inherent strengths and weaknesses. It would appear that neither holds a clear advantage over the other.

It’s not surprising that many partisans claim that their candidate neither waffles nor are out of step with the will of the majority, but it wouldn’t take much effort to illustrate that every candidate holds a stand on an issue that is at odds with a majority of the people or has changed his or her stance on an issue at some point in their careers. Only a dunce with no opinions on anything can honestly avoid the “waffle” or “out of step label”.

Perhaps a candidate who both “waffles” and is “out of step” is actually what is best for this country. There are times when both qualities are necessary. So, the next time you hear your candidate being accused of waffling or being out of step it might be wise to take a moment to reflect on whether that label might actually be a worthwhile attribute. It might give political discourse a whole new perspective.