Political pandering is telling a voter what they want to hear in order to solicit their vote. It is a timeless political technique. However, when it is done irresponsibly, without any limits, pandering directly destroys purpose.

::::::::

Political pandering is telling a voter what they want to hear in order to solicit their vote.   It is a timeless political technique.   However, when it is done irresponsibly, without any limits, pandering directly destroys purpose.

The Teachings of Law School

It is no accident that many politicians are trained as lawyers.   At the very beginning of my law school experience I was taught an essential principle about legal argument, whether oral or in writing.   In drafting an argument we were taught that opposing briefs were to be like "two ships passing in the night."   For a long time I was confused as to what this meant.   I mean, if two people are writing about the same set of events, shouldn't there be some agreement, some overlap in their positions?   The answer to this question, according to the quote is, "No." The two positions should be presented as so diametrically opposed that you would not easily recognize them as the same event, hence, "ships passing in the night."

This method, called argument or persuasion, seeks to present the client's position in the best possible light. Accordingly, Squires and Rombauer, the authors of our legal writing text informed the reader that:

"The facts must be candidly set forth, but the writer may arrange them, phrase them, and expand or condense treatment of particular events so as to emphasize favorable facts and to diminish unfa ­vorable facts."

So the art of persuasion depends on skillfully emphasizing what we call the "favorable facts" and diminishing what we refer to as the "unfavorable facts."

Now any reader of intelligence will soon realize that this kind of factual manipulation comes very close to the border of downright factual distortion.   Some people call factual distortion "lying."   But, as you can see from the explanation, lying is not what lawyers are taught.   They are taught to manage the facts.   That this process brings one continually into the danger land of distortion is taught as merely one of the hazards of the practice of advocacy or persuasion.  

And these days, because of the prominence that lawyers have in our public life, even non-lawyers engage in this sometimes hazardous activity.

100%   Anti-Abortion and 100% Pro-Choice

Perhaps the clearest example of this kind of pandering occurred in a local race in our city in 2004.   On September 1, 2004 the Everett Herald ran a story entitled: "On abortion, lawmaker is on both sides: Everett lawmaker receives perfect ratings from pro and anti factions."

In the article, reporter David Olson revealed the controversy generated by Rep. David Simpson's efforts to gain the endorsements of Human Life of Washington, an anti-abortion group, and NARAL Pro-Choice Washington.   In completing their questionnaires he indicated support for both organizations.  

In fact, Human Life of Washington, was so impressed with his answers that "it endorsed him in the 38th Legislative District primary Sept. 14 against union leader Mike Sells."   He told them that he was "so strongly against abortion that he supports making it illegal in almost all circumstances."

Then both groups learned of the answers given the other.   To their surprise each group had given him their highest score.  Olson reported that Simpson "became perhaps the first political candidate in state history to get a 100 percent score from both organizations."  

When this was discovered Human Life CEO Dan Kennedy said he felt "burned" and that the group would "withdraw its endorsement."  In addition he stated, "I have never heard of anything like this.  It's disingenuous in the least, and extremely troubling."

When Simpson learned that his answers had been made public he stated that his response to Human Life's questionnaire were incorrect.  

Olson reported that Karen Cooper of NARAL was "miffed that Simpson apparently was trying to play both sides of the fence on the politically volatile abortion issue."   He quoted her as saying:

"To be 100 percent pro-choice and 100 percent anti-choice is a total contradiction in terms. I think this is about trying to please the listener and saying what the listener wants."     

Olson's article was published just before the 2004 primary election.

In the primary, David Simpson lost.   In an Everett Herald interview on September 15, 2004 his opponent Sells said,   "I'm certain it had an impact-People look at candidates' credibility and make judgments based on that."

Pandering and Total Contradiction

Clearly, the "credibility" problem flows from "the contradiction" of trying to advocate for opposite positions at the same time.

Make no mistake, THIS IS THE ESSENTIAL HAZARD OF PANDERING.   When a politician tells whatever group he is in front of what they want to hear in order to gain their support, sooner or later he will contradict himself.   It is inevitable.   Pure pandering represents a reckless disregard of existing facts.  You are allowed to "diminish" unfavorable facts but you are not allowed to eliminate them.

This is why every politician is coached to "stay on message."   Unlike pandering, message is purpose.   "Message" represents the argument that the candidate is advocating.   If we are fortunate it also represents the candidates vision for the public.    

Pure pandering destroys purpose in the head-on collision of contradiction.  

Purpose is essential to meaning.   When we say what we mean our words have clarity and focus.    We instinctively believe that those who say what they mean will manifest their words in action.

Occasionally, time may allow a person to be for a cause and then later against a cause.   But, as Mr. Simpson learned, unless your pandering remains undetected, it is impossible to be in favor of opposite purposes at the same time without destroying the inherent meaning and credibility of both positions.  

Pure pandering generates meaninglessness.

Authors Website: http://www.ericzlucas.com

Authors Bio:

Eric Z. Lucas is an alumnus of Stanford University (Creative Writing Major: 1972-1975), the University of Washington (1981: BA English Literature and Elementary Education) and Harvard Law School, J.D. 1986. Since law school he has been a public servant: a prosecuting attorney, a city attorney and a trial judge. Born in Spokane, Washington where his military family lived until the age of twelve, he still resides in Washington State. Married to his wife Beth since 1974, they have four adult children and two grandchildren. Further discussions of Eric's work are available on the website: The Path of Public Service. Eric is the author of the following books: a children's book entitled: "The Island Horse," November 2005; "The Tao of Public Service" published February 2013 by Balboa Press, and "All Lives Matter: Essays, On the Need for a New View of Citizenship" published by KindlePublishing e-book July 2015. Eric's books are currently available from: Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, Balboa Press and Self Discovery Publications directly or through the website listed below.