We find people are for their favorite politician for various reasons and this is part of the political scene anywhere. Those who tout any politician keep to the theme that he/she is for this or that or against this or that and this is just looking at one element alone. It gets more complicated as one analyzes other aspects of their favorite or not-so-favorite political figure. However, we have a form of balance here. There are also those who oppose a politician for various reasons; this then rounds out the core of politics and although seemingly a basic concept, it is essentially true.
Accusations and subsequent denials between and toward other candidates are also part of today’s political scenario and is, furthermore, fodder for the Mainstream Media. This is found with practically any political figure. However, there is often too much evidence from both sides of any politician’s stated and accused positions that make it almost appear that a politician is indeed capable of standing on both sides of the proverbial fence.
These considerations are not as simple as it often seems. One viable source on the Internet says such things as taking a political stance that changes from day-to-day within the same person could possibly lead to the conclusion that it is dealing with a person with more than one personality, either obvious or under the surface. That we could see someone with “multiple personalities” at work in some extreme cases is undoubtedly rare but keep in mind that politicians are people and as such are not exceptions to personality characteristics of society at large. Thank goodness that a person with multiple personalities is at most a rare thing to see.
This brings to mind a statistic I read many years ago relating to suicide; It pointed to suicides among professionals was topped by the number among psychiatrists. Part of the training and education for psychiatrists included, at least in those days at some schools, self-analysis and the idea was that upon self-analysis, they saw things in their own personalities that they could not live with… Therefore, this could also be a factor in professionals’ lives where they sometimes go into deep depression and their way of escape from this depression is often by staying busy in their profession as they deal with others. Looking outward is much less problematic than looking inward.
I do not mean that politicians suffer from some kind of split personality any more than the rest of us in society. However, “shift” or “rubbering” of stands on an issue is not consistent with what we people of society want to see in a Conservative leader, disregarding the fact that any person of authority must also be ready to change positions when confronted by particular extenuating circumstances, as the need demands. Therefore, the idea presented here is not specific to any politician alone and should not be directed toward any certain politician as to make this an element in our political preferences at the polls.
It is useful to remember that Conservative is best defined in the aspect of preserving the old landmarks, the standard of what is right is indeed right and what is wrong is wrong and little or nothing in between. In other words, a political leader cannot have it both ways, as a general rule! What we should want is predictable conservatism in a politician, whoever he/she may be.
This brief view of another way to look at politicians and political leadership is not meant to be a deep study into anyone’s personality. However, any potentially political figure, any politician and others that are ambitious in the world of politics, must be taken apart and put back together again to make sure he/she is what is claimed, no more and no less, and that in the end We the People get what we think we are getting when we go to the polls.
What must be emphasized here is that this is not to condemn any specific politician or place a mark of approval. We must scrutinize all potential or actual candidates. It is not, as the Mainstream Media sometimes hints, proof of Republican infighting when Republicans seem to tear each other apart. It is part of our traditional process in choosing a candidate.
On the Left, the Democrats are not too busy tearing each other apart and exposing themselves to public view since the traditional view they want the public to see is that the Democrats are a unified party (and thus their proclivity to gain union approval and support). Therefore, to denigrate Republicans for doing this kind of internal scrutiny and making it appear to merely tear each other down works well into their political strategy. We now see President Obama apparently running unopposed so this reinforces the concept as we look toward the Left.
By being consistently critical of Republican potential candidates is part of a healthy political process. It often reveals elements of a politician’s character that results from questions that we voters wish we could ask but are unable to ask due to not having direct access to the political process. But, being consistent with all candidates in this scrutiny, as people should be, not knowing everything possible about the potential candidates would then make us prejudiced toward or against a candidate because of our not knowing all the parameters and attributes. In the end, the idea of a person who assumes acceptance without scrutiny brings to mind that some kind of stealthy politics is at work.
If a politician has one personality one day and another on another day, he/she remains, in the end, a question mark. However, let’s remember another, very-important thing: Politicians can change their minds and yet be Conservative and loyal to principle and character. To say otherwise is to fall prey to the opposition’s tendency to poison political waters at the expense of the opponent while they, the Liberals, define being Liberal as one who can change the mind but with a difference: A Liberal usually wants change in peculiar ways. For example, they see something good in something obviously evil and also see something evil in what is obviously good. This is consistent in their denial for taking ultimate, personal responsibility for decisions and actions. Therefore, they love to muddy the waters and then decry that they alone understand issues. In the process, do we hear them pointing to Republicans and say we are inconsistent and “flip-floppers”? Sure, if it can be to the Left’s political advantage.
Do we see flip-flopping apparent in candidates and not necessarily in any particular politician and not necessarily in one or the other political party? To use another politician’s vernacular: You Betcha!
Being able to adjust is also part of a politician’s make-up. One aspect of the etymology of the word politics as regards someone in politics is “a political animal.” In other words, we can say it is someone who does not always take a direct line from one place to another but, instead, may vary the path to a goal.
These days, if someone were to state his/her views in a locked-in-stone way with no variation possible, people would not believe that person to be honest. In all honesty, we have grown to appreciate and accept someone in politics who is capable of adjusting to social requirements both locally and in general since every one of us must also make everyday adjustments. To make it a political thing is merely labeling politically a normal social function in a way as to mark it as unacceptable.
Finally, let’s hope we can go into the 2012 election process with both eyes open and this means every day since even today, before the November elections go into high gear, we can see things changing on a daily basis. Approaching November, this will become more important. We might as well get used to it now and become part of the process early on.
Bob Lunsford——
Bio and Archives
Mr. Lunsford is a retired DoD telecommunications engineer, linguist and world traveler now living in eastern Kentucky. Still active in radio communications, he has several books copyrighted, one of which is now in final process of publication. He is politically motivated and, as much as possible, politically active.
