Principles Promote Consistent Policies

Does consistency matter?

Do you want your neighbor, whose brother is a politician, to get a tax break when you don't? If not, then you care about consistency. Most of us want consistency when it comes to money or an opportunity given to someone else for no good reason. Inconsistent choices lead to unfairness. We promote fairness by promoting consistency.

Principles promote consistency

Let us look at something basic, our life. We do not want others to harm us, let alone kill us. We could define a policy (which we later write into a law) that prohibits killing. We might identify the underlaying principle as:
"Human life is important to the fabric of society. Human life should never be squandered senselessly and the penalties for violation of this principle should be severe."

As differently as we all see many things, this principle should be acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. This principle recognizes that even human life might be sacrificed to balance other principles, but should never be taken senselessly. This would support an individual enlisting in the military and losing her life in support of one of our other principles. It would condemn a drunk driver who killed a teenager. It permits self defense when one believes an attacker might kill them, but may condemn someone who kills an unarmed attacker who is now running away. It suggests that suicide should be prohibited. It does not state what specifically qualifies as 'senseless' or how severe a penalty should be. The policies that we craft based upon this principle must also be balanced or graduated depending upon other principles that may apply.

Balance is key

Even when we define our principles, we will have to address when those principles collide. Which principle takes precedence? Is there a compromise position that best meets our needs or is compromise of one position unacceptable?

Each of us will answer these questions differently. Each politician should identify and state their own principles. It is their principles that we are supporting or trying to defeat. A candidate may promote some principles which a voter supports, and others that voter opposes. In many circumstances, the principles may be less controversial than the policies a politician promotes (based upon those principles). In assessing three hypothetical candidates who say that they support the life principle identified above, each could define different abortion policies.

• Candidate A - supports a woman's right to choose under all circumstances with the reasoning that only the woman can determine what options might be effective for her. An abusive relationship, other children, finances or medical issues may make life impossible for a woman and her family in ways that government cannot foresee. Further, this candidate recognizes that abortions will continue despite laws to prohibit them, but illegal (and unsafe) abortions increase the number of women's lives lost.


• Candidate B - supports legal abortion only when a mother's life or health is at risk (including rape or incest) or the fetus is not viable or will not survive long after birth. This candidate reasons that these are the only reasonable exchanges for a life and that in all other circumstances the fetus should be carried to term, where adoption is an option.


• Candidate C - opposes legal abortion in all circumstances. This position would conflict with the life principle stated above, because this position precludes saving the mother in the circumstance that both mother and fetus might die if an abortion is not performed. Precluding abortion in this circumstance leads to a senseless loss of life and is inconsistent with the life principle we defined. Perhaps the candidate choosing to oppose all legal abortion bases their position upon a different principle. If so, they should clearly state that they do not, in fact, support the defined life principle but choose to support a different life principle (which they then define for us).