|
Can you imagine George W. Bush running against Abe Lincoln? Now, I'm not comparing John Kerry to Abe Lincoln (although there is some physical resemblance) - my point is that Lincoln straddled the slavery issue. He was genuinely torn about it, holding nuanced beliefs (like most NORMAL people). He disliked the institution, but wasn't an all-out abolitionist because he didn't view it as politically possible or economically sustainable. Nor did he approve of extreme abolitionist activists. More typical of a politician, he would emphasize his antislavery personal beliefs before antislavery audiences and play them down and play up his willingness to retain slavery when before pro-slavery audiences.
What this shows are two things. Number 1, politicians, like most reasonable people, often have views that aren't taken to the logical extremes, but are "nuanced" and somewhat complex - like normal people. Number 2, it's simply a fact of politics that politicians have to pander or straddle truly controversial issues if it's going to cause them a lot of harm. It's somewhat upsetting, but frankly, it doesn't really bother me so long as it doesn't become chronic and paralyzes a politician from ever doing anything - if in the context of a campaign, they have to straddle somewhat or play down certain views, that's fine with me, so long as it's not chronic and so long as they get elected and are effective.
Just putting some things in context.
|