Tacking to the center

In the glowing months of run-up to the U.S. presidential elections, political pundits speak with a knowing smirk of candidates who have begun "tacking to the center." They tell of a candidate who has taken positions favored by the most extreme elements of his party in order to secure the nomination thereof, and then, recognizing that average Americans are not extremists, starts to say things that effectively negate what he said to get nominated so as to be acceptable to them. Freely translated, "tacking to the center" means saying things one does not in any way believe so as to get elected so that he can effectuate policies in which he does believe, all the while hoping that the voters are too stupid or indifferent to the whole thing to notice the deception.

It is a very sad this that this maneuver works, since it encourages candidates to be deceitful. How then does one find out which candidate is the least deceitful and thus, assuming other things seem largely equal, probably the best bet to be president?

And it is deception, regardless of the euphemisms that the pundits and media apply to it. Both the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties have things which they strongly believe in; they could not be credible players upon the political stage without them. Giving speeches and talking to reporters without revealing what you actually believe is one thing; talking to donors and power brokers who expect a return upon their investment of millions of dollars and months of effort to get you elected is quite another. Operators and fundraisers are neither stupid nor indifferent, and will engage in hard questions and careful investigation of a candidate before putting either resource into a campaign. Obama and McCain's major backers know exactly where each one stands or they would not be major backers.

But they don't let us in on it, because that would make it public, and once the real specifics of what you want to do goes public it enrages your adversaries and motivates them to stop you as well as, more importantly, giving you no place to run when talking to the vast sea of moderates and independents who don't really follow this stuff closely but know what they don't want to hear. Hence, weasel words, generalities, euphemisms, "it will depend", "we're studying that very carefully" - tacking to the center. Even better, if you can get away with it, is saying one thing to one group of potential backers and saying the exact opposite to another group which is at odds with the first group. This generally only works if you can be sure that there will be no real scrutiny from the media about the contradictions.

How then to discover what a candidate actually thinks? Here is the answer, and it is almost invariably true. The candidate tells the truth the first time, when he is seeking his party's nomination. Anything a candidate says after having secured that, if it contradicts what he said to get nominated, is almost invariably a lie. A liberal like Barack Obama who starts making conservative noises once nominated is saying what must be said to get elected - he doesn't believe a word of it. Same thing for a conservative like John McCain. Now, since both candidates will play this game because it does work, the task of a person who considers himself or herself neither liberal nor conservative is to discern which one of them is the least blatant of a liar. Who does this "tacking to the center" thing the fewest times, or on the fewest issues; and if those are largely equal who moves to the center the least, since the one who moves furthest to the center is by definition telling the biggest whoppers.

The only time this kind of a move is really legitimate is when the facts surrounding an issue have changed obviously and dramatically between when the candidate was wooing the base voters of his party and when the nomination was largely secured (neither Obama nor McCain are actual nominees since the conventions haven't occurred, but everyone knows they are anyway). McCain could make this argument regarding drilling for oil because of the huge increase in the price; Obama could do likewise regarding the strategy for the Iraq war because of the increased level of security there. Both will, as candidates do, spin the events to their advantage.

It is up to the voters who actually care about the future of the country to determine which candidate is making the most honorable case. Keeping these guidelines in mind is a good start.