The Other Side of the Waffle

Waffle, v.t. & 1. To flutter; to flap.--Webster's New International Dictionary

Determined to pin the label of "waffler" on Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford's campaign strategists are raising quite a , flap over the Democratic candidate's widely reported inconsistencies, contradictions or obfuscations (TIME, May 31 et seq.). They accuse him of waffling on matters as disparate as abortion, grain embargoes, repeal of the right-to-work law and whether he would fire FBI Chief Clarence Kelley if Carter becomes President. Yet as Carter's forces are getting ready to counterattack, there is plenty of ammunition available.

Ford has changed his position quite a bit on matters of presidential policy. He had once dismissed the possibility of pardoning Richard Nixon because "I do not think the public would stand for it"--but he did just that. He reversed ground on economic strategy, first passing out WIN (Whip Inflation Now) buttons and urging tax increases; then, as the recession worsened, he called for a large tax cut and wound up with a 1976 budget deficit of almost $66 billion. He vowed not to sign any bill extending those tax cuts beyond 1975 unless Congress agreed to an equal cutback in federal spending, but when Congress failed to do so, he signed an extension nevertheless.

A President with the full responsibility of governing, responding to shifting circumstances, is not in a comparable position with a candidate waffling under the political pressures of a campaign. Yet many of Candidate Ford's flutters have been essentially part of campaign tactics. Some examples:

ABORTION. Ford's position on the question of amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion, first expressed in a Walter Cronkite TV interview last February, was that "a constitutional amendment goes too far." Later in the same interview, he indicated he might accept an amendment giving each state the right to enforce whatever abortion laws it wishes. But last week Ford insisted, "My position is that of the Republican platform, and I will stick with it." Without explaining why, he seemed to see no distinction between his states' rights stand and the platform's, which supports "the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." This "right to life" plank says nothing about letting each state go its own way on abortion.

ENERGY. Ford began last year with a sensible program to conserve energy, reduce oil imports and expand development of domestic energy sources. Trouble was, it called for raising the price of oil by temporarily imposing import fees and ending domestic price controls. The President abandoned his position late in the year under a crossfire of political pressures. He signed a bill retaining price controls on both new and old oil supplies in the U.S., which has discouraged growth of domestic production and contributed to increased U.S. reliance on imports. One reason for his change: the bill was popular in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, where people burn great amounts of oil--and where the first two primaries were held.

DAY-CARE CENTERS. Last April, in the midst of his battle against Ronald Reagan, Ford vetoed a $125 million bill to improve health and safety standards of day-care centers for children of welfare mothers; the bill had been popular with most of the public--but not with the Republican right-wingers. Last week with the nomination safely in hand, he called in TV cameras to record his signing of a $240 million compromise measure, in which the differences were mostly cosmetic.

THE PANAMA CANAL. Stung by Reagan's accusation last spring that Ford was "giving away" the canal, the President promised, during a campaign visit to Texas, that the U.S. "will never give up its defense rights . . . and operational rights." That was a flat contradiction of instructions that Ford had given to U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador-at-Large Ellsworth Bunker, who was negotiating with the Panamanians. Later the White House was forced to issue a "clarification" that amounted to a retraction of Ford's remarks in Texas.

COMMON SITUS. In 1975 Ford gave public promises and firm private assurances to his Labor Secretary, John Dunlop, that he would sign the "common situs picketing bill," which would permit a single construction union to shut down an entire building site. But he gave in to great pressure from construction contractors and Republican leaders and vetoed the measure. With that, Dunlop resigned.

GRAIN EMBARGOES. Ford ordered moratoriums on grain sales to the Soviet Union in 1974 and in 1975. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he pledged, "There will be no embargoes." Yet, as Running Mate Robert Dole has conceded, embargoes on sales of food abroad might have to be considered if there were a national emergency, like a serious domestic food shortage. Carter has made essentially the same comedown on the issue.

NATIONAL PARKS. As attendance at national parks soared, Ford's Office of Management and Budget consistently refused to let the National Park Service spend more to meet the demands. But two weeks ago, bidding for support from park lovers and conservationists, Ford posed before Yellowstone National Park's Old Faithful geyser to propose a $1.5 billion, 10-year parks improvement program.

Certainly, consistency is not always a virtue in a politician. It becomes a vice if it means that a candidate or officeholder will never amend his judgment, never compromise on issues or respond to the shifting pressures of democratic government. For both Ford and Carter, each switch on an issue has to be examined on its own merits to determine whether it shows an unsure, vacillating nature, a yielding to short-term political expendiency--or perhaps a sensible change of mind.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.