Campaigning vs. Leading

The recent debate over immigration reform has placed many U.S. senators and representatives, especially Republicans desirous of national office, in a difficult spot. Should an ambitious politician appeal to the conservative base by categorically opposing any reform that would include a way for undocumented immigrants to eventually gain citizenship, or pursue a more practical and realistic approach that would result in a solution to a pressing public problem?

A recent column by John Dickerson, chief political columnist for Slate.com, argues that Tennessee's Bill Frist, the GOP majority leader in the U.S. Senate and a potential 2008 presidential candidate faced this dilemma and has chosen to "pander" to the conservative base. Writes Dickerson:

"On Tuesday, when the Senate Judiciary Committee produced an immigration bill that included tough security and border-enforcement measures but also a program that would allow existing illegal aliens to get legal, Frist was the first to step up and call it 'amnesty.' This is not the act of a thoughtful, nuanced majority leader. This is the act of a candidate."

While Dickerson is pointed in his assessment of Frist's actions, the column raises interesting questions about the tension between political ambition and governance that is in the best interest of society as a whole.