<p>At the risk of starting a very heated discussion, I’d like to know how people interpret a ‘change of stance’ that so many politicians are accused of taking, but with negative connotations.</p>
<p>As I read stories on the various candidates, I see over and over again that one candidate accuses the other of changing their positions on controversial issues (I’m not looking to debate issues here).</p>
<p>I understand that the nature of politics is that candidates will switch sides on issues under the influence of powerful people and their monetary resources. However, I also believe that there are some politicians who switch sides after careful deliberation of new research, internal reflection and a desire to address difficult issues. So it seems as if most politicians are ‘penalized’ for switching sides. I guess I see people as constantly evolving, and in this process, it’s unrealistic to expect even our politicians to remain loyal to issues when given new information.</p>
<p>So, in candidates, do you look for someone who runs on an ethic that they are elected with assumptions that they will remain loyal to their positions? Or are you more impressed with a candidate who, after educating themselves further on an issue, admit they might need to rethink their original stance based on new information?</p>
<p>I guess I’m leaning more toward the person, who is willing to admit they formed an opinion on outdated information, but now needs to reconsider their conscience on the issue. Please feel free to play the devil’s advocate here, as I’m sure my approach has flaws in it.</p>
<p>I like the idea that an elected official can learn from new information and the mistakes made by him/herself and others. </p>
<p>What worries me is when the change in position appears to be driven by politics and the perception that a new position will be more popular with a certain block of voters.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is often terribly hard to decide which is which. Unfortunately, any change of opinion, no matter how well based on new information or evolving understanding is subject to the charge of flip-flopping.</p>
<p>I agree with you teri. I’m much more inclined to support a candidate who is self-reflective and open to changing his/her mind based on new information. The alternative is just too discouraging to me: a “leader” who is either so obstinate or politically motivated (i.e. sell-out of their own conscience) or afraid to reconsider facts or circumstances. The Emperor’s New Clothes addresses this in an off-hand way. The king wasn’t just misled by cow-towing advisors, he refused to face facts or admit an earlier mistake until it was too late. </p>
<p>I’m simply not impressed or swayed by most charges of flip-flopping. We are supposed to be life-long learners, after all.</p>
<p>Too many candidates seem to set their stance according to the latest poll. They also sometimes try to use the benefit of hindsight to change what their stance was is the past - sometimes intentionally misleading the public in doing so. Both are disingenuous to me and make me think less of the candidate. If a candidate constantly flip-flops then they’re next to useless since you have no real idea of what their stance will be on any topic. If a candidate has sound reasons why they’ve changed their stance on a topic and they’re not routinely changing their stances on every topic with the wind, then I generally don’t have a problem with that.</p>
<p>If a politician changes his/her mind based on new facts, new issues, or a clear process of introspection that leads to a change of heart, I don’t mind, and would probably actually like it.</p>
<p>However, if the flip-flop is based on polls, politics, or is so egregious and sudden as to suggest that, then I look upon it extremely negatively. To be topical, I’m sure everyone here is thinking of Romney in this subject, and I personally consider him of the latter type.</p>
<p>10f42; yes, all the recent spin on Romney is what has reminded me again of this phenomena, but Giuliani has had his share of flip-flopping on things. I’m sure Democrats can be just as guilty, but I just find it interesting that people look at it as a weakness that must be overcome. I think there are people out there who would prefer a candidate who can be loyal to his election platform.</p>
<p>I agree with you on Romney. I don’t see Guiliani as a flip-flopper, though I think he’s trying to put a more Republican spin on basically the positions he’s always had. I think a lot of candidates accused of flip-flopping actually have voted one way or another because the issues weren’t nearly as cut and dried as the accusers imply. I do think people should be allowed to change and grow. I’ve certainly changed my mind on some things over the years.</p>
<p>Johm McCain is pretty consistent in his views - except he learned a big lesson about immigration and, fortunately was able to demonstrate some flexibility.</p>
<p>Many of the newspapers endorsing McCain have mentioned his principles and “straight talk”. One might not always agree with him (he gets hit by ultra-conservatives sometimes because he’ll put partisanship aside when necessary), but he’ll always give you a straight answer & you’ll always know where he stands on an issue. Unlike the other candidates, John McCain won’t just pander to an audience & say only what he thinks they want to hear.</p>
<p>A great statesman, a great leader & an “American Hero” who is honest & thrifty w/ our tax money. A good one to vote for!</p>
<p>Ron Paul has been saying the same things since 1985, and he doesnt accept any money from PACs, lobbyists, or special interests groups. He’d be my bet to stick to his guns if elected President.</p>
<p>I lean Dem. and I could vote for McCain- I believe it would be possible for him to change positions based on sound reasoning not on polling data. For example I disagree with him on gay marriage but could see him actual listening to my view. If he changed his postion I feel it would be based on his seeing the unfairness that exists not on polling data. Most of the others pander. Ron Paul is great in that he answers the ?s directly- I do agree with his total overall stance- we have too much gov. but he goes to far for me. I believe there are some things gov. should do- universal health care but there are many areas I want the gov. out of. Yes I believe in universal health care and smaller gov. I think the priorities of our gov are wrong but certain things can better serve the public interest if done by the gov.</p>
<p>The politicians I agree with only change their minds based on new facts, new issues, or a clear process of introspection that leads to a change of heart.</p>
<p>However, the other guys just flip-flop based on polls and politics.</p>
<p>“I have never had a problem with pols changing their positions as long as they have a valid reason and not merely political expediency.”</p>
<p>Right. To consider two Republicans:</p>
<p>Take Dick Cheney and gay marriage. Not that he actually does anything to make gay marriage happen, but I believe that decades of watching his daughter, and later her partner, genuinely made him appreciate aspects of the issue he failed to understand before. I buy, and I grudgingly respect, his change of heart on this.</p>
<p>On the other hand, take Mitt Romney and abortion. I don’t believe that anyone who’d been a missionary and a bishop in a strongly anti-abortion church, and who went to Harvard Law School, and had been a player in electoral politics since 1994, and was pro-choice after all that experience, conveniently had a 180-degree epiphany in late middle age. Maybe I could buy it if he suddenly converted to a new religion at that age, or something. But Mitt? No way. He never cared about substantive issues one way or the other; he was just going with the flow. The wind blows in a different direction now, so watch him sail to the right.</p>
<p>Where there’s a slew of new data, I question anyone who DOESN’T change positions. Take John Edwards. He voted to authorize the Iraq war, and it turned into a giant fiasco (with no WMD), so now he says, “We shouldn’t have trusted this president with that power. I wish I’d cast a different vote.” Hillary? We’re still waiting.</p>
<p>So, now that the fiasco ship has turned around and things looks a lot less dire, are the Dems going to do yet another reversal? Nope, not until their base does as well. To pitch Edward’s transformation as some sort of logical analysis of the data is very naive. He thought that he knew exactly what would be required to win the nomination and conformed his platform to meet those expectations. In that sense he is exactly like Romney - except that Edwards flip flops have a direct effect on foreign policy and security. I think those types of flip flops should be held to tighter scrutiny than generic flip flops.</p>
<p>However, I give both Edwards and Romney credit for at least taking a definitive position and sticking with it. Those are real flip flops but at least they decided which side of the fence they wanted to be on and then defended that position. Contrast those with the waffles of the Kerry and Clinton campaign where they say whatever they feel that their audience of the day wants to hear. I’ll take a flip-flopper over a waffler any day.</p>
<p>I thought this was interesting concerning changing positions,
but I wonder about how sincere it is, since Brooks is conservative. I viewed it as an attempt to split the Dem vote.</p>
“less dire” is like Bush bragging about “cutting the deficit in half!” Translated: “Yeah, America’s still getting screwed, but we’re only screwing you half as bad as we said we were going to! So why aren’t you grateful?”</p>
<p>FF, I hate to break it to you - the second half of your sentence is accurate, the first is fantasy. The “fiasco ship” hasn’t “turned around” - it’s just not heading any further into the iceberg. Yes, the situation is “less dire” now than a year ago - at a huge cost in American live and wealth - but it’s still “dire.” Squandering hundreds of US servicemen’s lives and hundreds of billions of dollars each year just so the last act of the Iraq fiasco doesn’t take place on a failed politician’s “watch” is the price of making things “less dire.” Do you honestly think things are going to get “not at all dire” anytime soon in Iraq? </p>
<p>As for your assessment of various democratic politicians - see my post #12.</p>
<p>…so you figure that the Republican Administration has engineered a true lose-lose situation, and thus Republicans should be entrusted with figuring out the way to lose the least from here on out? Well, I guess if experience at screwing things up is your criteria for qualification to handle things in the future, that makes sense.</p>