Although I do not doubt the integrity of either Sens. Bill Bradley or John McCain, I believe that their campaign styles deceived many voters into believing that blunt truth-telling should be the sole standard in choosing a candidate.
The Bradley-McCain phenomenon attempted to lure the electorate with the false promise that unvarnished honesty alone solves nettlesome policy problems. As much as every voter desires to see a candidate candidly telling the truth about each and every issue, rarely is “truth” the central issue in a policy debate. The “truth” may set us free, but it does not resolve conflicting interests in knotty problems whose solutions often risk baleful unintended consequences.
Issues of full funding of all Medicare prescriptions, gun control, pro- and anti-choice in the abortion debate, to mention only a few, embrace a host of widely differing opinions among a broad spectrum of factions, most reasonably motivated and honestly dedicated to their cause.
The posture of undaunted truth-telling inevitably implies that those who disagree with us are telling falsehoods or have no higher motive than pandering for votes. Although this may sometimes be true, one should not so quickly discount the traditional function of political parties in our history. Mainstream Democrats and Republicans understand that the democratic process in a huge country of many conflicting interests must achieve a balancing of those interests through debate and ultimately compromise.
Mature debate should exclude bulldogging opponents with accusations of “evil” and “bigotry” or implications that only one’s own campaign is above self-interest. They fail because the electorate, we hope, is still wedded to a standard of mature debate.
