
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, December 18, 1994                   TAG: 9412200006
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: G-2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: SYDNEY B. SELF JR.
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

WHEN POLITICIANS CONFORM THEIR VIEWS TO THE OPINION POLLS

SINCE THE recent election, there have been any number of analyses published trying to explain the results. One explanation I've not seen is that perhaps Americans are getting fed up with populism. I know I am.

Sure, populism appears to be so democratic. The politician determines what appears to be public opinion on various relevant issues, usually by means of polls, and then shapes his (or her) own public position on issues according to the results. Therefore, by definition, he's representing views of his constituency, which is the democratic way of doing things. Right? Trouble is, there are some problems that arise.

First, if the politician shapes his views based on public opinion, he's a follower, not a leader. And who needs him if he's a follower? Anyone can be a follower; whereas, real leaders are in short supply.

Second, if politicians aren't leading us, who is? The obvious answer is ``the media.'' I can't speak for others, but this bothers me. I have no voice in their selection. If they goof, there's no recourse. (I've seen no discussion of the media's role in the Somalia fiasco.) And I have no reason to believe that the media know best what's good for America, although they think they do.

Third, knowing (or thinking he knows) public opinion, the politician can make a definitive statement that he is for or against a specific issue - abortion, for example. This is dangerous because, if a new poll shows that public opinion has shifted, he then has to shift his opinion also. And at this point, his opponent is sure to accuse him of hypocrisy, lying, indecisiveness, or all of the above. Another alternative is for the politician to waffle. Of course, this is what most elect to do.

This leads to the fourth problem, which is, we no longer really know very much about those we're asked to vote for. With few exceptions, over the past 20 years or so, I haven't known any major candidate's true views on any issue. All I know is what the public-relations people choose to tell me. This doesn't generate any enthusiasm on my part to go to the polling place and pull a lever.

The above leads to another problem, which has also been the subject of a lot of discussion - namely, that our political campaigns have changed from discussions of issues to personal attacks. It seems to me the obvious cause is that two people can't have a meaningful debate if neither is willing (or able) to state what he believes in. And since a politician has to say something when he sees a microphone, his only option is to attack his opponent's character.

It's ridiculous to ask, but what I'd like to see is a lot more honesty and a little bit more common sense on the part of politicians and voters. I try to keep myself reasonably well-informed, but I don't have enough time to become knowledgeable on every subject on which a congressman may have to make decisions.

When selecting a congressman, I think we should establish a sort of contract. The congressman should obligate himself to act at all times in what he conceives to be his constituents' best interests, even though they may disagree on what these best interests are. We in turn should recognize not only that the representative has access to information not available to us, which may cause him to act in ways we don't approve, but also that his constituents' interests always conflict to a degree and he should try to act for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Thus, although our representative may not always act the way we prefer, we should be able to trust that on the whole he's acting in our best interests. Obviously, this kind of trust only exists if we have confidence in the integrity of the person representing us, and this confidence only exists if we know how this person feels about basic issues.

Just for once, I'd like to have the opportunity to choose between candidates who have studied the issues, have formed opinions about them, are willing to state exactly how they feel and why, and are willing to defend their views without apology.

I get very tired of walking into a voting booth and wishing there were a ``None of the Above'' lever I could pull. I hope I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Sydney B. Self Jr. of Bedford is a retired business-system analyst.

by CNB