hopefully a constructive political debate

teriwtt
Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:29:54 +0000

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.

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).

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.

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?

I guess I’m leaning more toward the person, who is willing to admit they formed an opinion on outdated information, but now needs to reconsider their conscience on the issue.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.