ESCAPING BEING BOXED-IN BY ADOPTING NEW LINGUISTIC HABITS

11 June 08

Making commitments to aims rather than to policies is an untidy way of reducing the chances that candidates will box themselves in and thus introduce unwise limits to the alternatives considered in debate. The terms "aims" and "policies" do not neatly make the distinction at issue. Candidates can box themselves in by vociferously committing to an aim. On the other hand, commitment to a policy can turn out to be open-ended: Obama’s policy of talking to Iran without conditions has been readily and plausibly glossed to allow for preliminary agreement on an agenda; and that is a condition, though not a very limiting one. Unless we are to try the patience of the public by introducing an intricate apparatus of new terms and definitions, we shall have to rely on making a habit of something like the linguistic usage that favors a tendency to distinguish between aims and policies. When obstacles prevent us from carrying an aim to an end, we say that we remain committed to the aim, but postpone further efforts to achieve it, and meanwhile advance part way. When we have to abandon a policy, the embarrassment is greater, though we maybe able to minimize the embarrassment by retreating to treating it as an aim, to be achieved step by step.