Imagine the following scenario—it won’t be difficult.
Two candidates, each vying for support to represent their party in the presidential election, have been grappling over issues for months. Inevitably, one prevails over the other and wins the nomination. As the national convention progresses, the winner taps the loser as his or her vice-presidential running mate.
The two retire for a private meeting to hash out the details. After a couple of hours, the new candidate for VP emerges before a battalion of microphones and cameras to announce his acceptance.
“But what about all the policy differences you so hotly debated throughout the primary race?” one reporter asks. “How can you join this ticket when you and the presidential nominee have such divergent positions?”
“The two of us spent a long time discussing these issues,” comes the smooth reply, “and our future president has convinced me that his opinion on each of these issues is the correct one.”
What are we to think of this candidate and his response?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons in defense of the candidate’s reply.
List two or three reasons for being critical of the candidate’s reply.
Was there another way he might have responded?
Having weighed the options, as a politician, what would you do?
Gray Matters
The most obvious problem with the candidate’s reply is that no one is going to believe him. After months of speeches, debates, and interviews, it’s ludicrous to think that he could be convinced to reverse his position on a wide range of core issues after a 2-hour conversation.
But let’s examine the candidate’s dilemma.
He wants to support his own party candidate. He believes that this candidate will make a far superior president than the candidate from the other party. He wants to influence the direction of the country from within the White House. He understands that as VP he must support the policies of his president regardless of his own personal views.
Clearly, he cannot continue to advocate for his own policies if he accepts the nomination. But does that mean he has to publicly recant them all, thereby calling into question his own honesty and integrity? By answering as he did, he leaves the public no choice but to look at him as either a liar or a jellyfish.
Now imagine that he answered as follows:
“No two people can or should agree on everything, and that includes the two names on any presidential ticket. Having a variety of opinions and points of view ensures more reasoned discussions, more thoughtful decisions, and fewer policy errors.”
“However, all decisions will be the president’s, and I will support those decisions because I respect this candidate’s ability and integrity, and because I believe this candidate to be the person most qualified to do the job.”
Wouldn’t that be refreshing?