Decent Respect for Another Point of View
Special Contributor Tom Griscom
Partisanship tests ideas, but it should not be so rigid that it prevents us from considering other perspectives. A relationship between two political figures, Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Republican Senate Leader Howard Baker, exemplifies this principle. Despite their party differences, both men demonstrated a commitment to the nation over political expediency.
In June 1978, Time magazine wrote: “For a Republican, the minority leader of the Senate and a potential presidential rival in 1980, Howard Baker of Tennessee has been quite a bit of help to Jimmy Carter. He played a crucial role in passing the Panama Canal treaties. He once told the President, ‘Mr. President, I’m tired of doing the right thing.’”
Politics is a confrontational contest of ideas, along with a decent respect for the other’s point of view. There is a fair chance of being right as much as it bothers us to think that. There is a delicate balance between standing firm on principle and the necessity of compromise to achieve the better outcome.
Baker’s leadership on the Panama Canal Treaty stands as one of the most courageous in U.S. Congressional history. Twenty Senators who supported the treaty faced re-election in 1978; only seven were re-elected. After a fact-finding trip to Panama and consulting with experts, Baker chose to back the treaty. He told President Carter, “I wish you hadn’t asked for my support. This has been debated for years. Why now and why me?” His vote demonstrated that sometimes, doing the right thing requires great political courage.
For being known for the question, “What did the President know, and when did he know it,” Baker had the utmost respect for the office of the presidency.
Campaigning in 1980 to challenge Carter, Baker, who as a candidate remained Republican Senate leader, landed in Des Moines, Iowa, for a series of campaign events. An aide came up with a note. He took the paper, skimmed over the words, and walked over to an awaiting press pool. Tom Pettit, of NBC, asked, “Senator, what is your reaction to President Carter’s announced grain embargo.” In a state where the first presidential caucuses were held and where farmers are king, Baker’s response went from candidate to Senate leader: “No comment until I can talk with the President.” One could feel the escaping air from his presidential ballon.
Our most valued public servants, whether Democratic or Republican, should be inspired by a sense of duty and service and a desire to do what it right for our Nation, whether it is politically advantageous or not.
Baker contributed to many of Carter’s accomplishments – energy policy, rescuing New York and Chrysler, arms sales to the Middle East, and saving Alaska’s wilderness lands. However, he opposed Carter on labor law reform and the Salt 2 treaty, where their differences were too great.
SALT 2 was expected to be Baker’s advantage in his 1980 presidential race. While others crisscrossed the country from Iowa to New Hampshire, he was going to be broadcast into American homes nightly, laying out his opposition to the treaty at a time when the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan. His strategic opening closed when Carter withdrew the treaty in January 1980, weeks ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
Carter and Baker’s collaboration offers hope that political cooperation, grounded in respect for differing viewpoints, is possible even at a time of political polarization. True leadership requires listening, understanding, and above all, respect of the perspectives of others.