I am not sure that I agree that standing up for principles, vs. going with the flow, or the perceived flow, is entirely a matter of courage vs cowardliness.

Back when I was more artsy, it was put to me that art departments, as well as any other institution that depends on serving a clientele that votes with their feet, has to pay attention to the pendulum. That is, kinds of art, particular interests in realism or abstraction, for example, or folk art vs. high art, comes in waves or is a matter described by a pendulum. This decade we are seeing a lot of interest in realist art, last decade it was abstraction.

If an art department, or Congressional candidates, to speak to your point, should try to offer something that the clients don't want to buy, then they will go out of business. Maybe next year, the pendulum will swing back to somewhere closer that the art department would like to teach with more conviction, or that the Congress people will fight for out of principle, but for the moment, you have to recognize where the market is.

You have sounded dismissive of the Congress people who you think say what their constituents want to hear, just so they can get elected. Compared to Senator Webb, you think, from what you say, that those who pander are pretty much cowards.

They might argue back that not all of the Dems could ignore the market. If they all did and enough lost, then Senator Webb would not have now the opportunity to fight for his principles.

I think you are not a very good artist, or a very good Congress person, if you merely pander to the crowd. But, this is their argument, you have to be aware of where the pendulum is in order to get elected, or in order to stay in business, or you cannot get those opportunities to make your principled stands.

Isn't this what the Dems who vote for Bush positions argue in their defense. Well, there may be those who vote for Bush positions out of principle, but then, maybe... they're really Repubs who have some idea of where the pendulum and market is in their own districts...

I think you misunderstood all of what I wanted to say about Glenn's argument.

I wanted to grant what Glenn was arguing, that it is the role or duty or expectation of a public leader to take positions that address issues important to the protection of their country, or their constituents. I agree with Glenn about this not only about Congress people, but about artists, and others who see themselves addressing conflicts and other public needs.

I think his recognition of Senator Webb is also commendable. However, I'm not sure that the other members of Congress will appreciate his further claim that they are not like Webb because they are cowards, or lack the courage to fight for their convictions.

On their behalf I supposed that they make the argument, given to me to defend an art department's choice to pander, that they have to recognize wnere the public's interests are at. That is, where the market or the pundulum of opinion is now swinging.

I am not sure that the Congress people justify their caving in to Bush's program by saying it's where the pendulum was swinging at the time, but, I suspect it's one argument they do make.

You wanted to come down on me for defending this view and for not seeing what Glenn's intentions were. You said,

"No doubt, "following the pendulum" - or, as stock traders might put it, "the trend is your friend" - works for careerists in many fields. But what Glenn is discussing is something more deeply fundamental. How do paradigm shifts in public opinion occur? What human actions can promote real change? (After all, in human affairs it's the opposite of gravity that causes a shift in direction.)"

As you grant me, speaking for careerists, following trends "works." But, I am not wanting to defend this view so much as pointing out I think it is their view, and I think it explains why Webb's principled stand is so unusual. Most of his colleagues are careerists, for the most part.

But, they also will argue that in order to get where they are, and even, in order for Webb to get to the Senate, they have to follow trends, or see which way the wind blows, in order to take a few principled stands once they get there.

So, basically, I think it's unfair to just say they are cowards. In one way, they are listening to their constituents.

A good observation on Webb's issue is that there is no big organized constituency for prison reform.