No Turning Back?

Reading about the Democratic debate in Pennsylvania yesterday (which I unfortunately missed while traveling for work), there was one thing that especially struck me. It somehow came up that a response to a 1996 questionnaire indicated that Barack Obama was in favor of state-imposed bans on handguns. Now the Obama campaign claims that the response was a mistake made by the staffers who filled out the questionnaire on the candidate’s behalf and that he has, in fact, never been in favor of such a restriction.

Let’s say for argument’s sake that Obama hadactually changed his position since 1996, and had decided that he was no longer in favor of state-imposed bans on handguns. There is little question that he’d be accused on all sides of inconsistency and duplicitousness.

But does everychange in position over one’s political career really have to be so discrediting?  Are there not arguments that might well show such voltefaces to be signs of increased credibility and reliability?

Are politicians not allowed, like the rest of us, to continously study and debate issues and evolve their positions on them? Indeed, out of all people in this country, politicians and other leaders have widespread access to experts in the issues in which they are charged with addressing. They are privy to special reports, panels, testimony, and networks that the common American would have to exert considerable effort and expense to obtain. Of all people, are not politicians the most ripe to have their opinions challenged and either strengthened, weakened, or nuanced?  Isn’t that exactly what the Democrats and others have been demanding of the Bush administration regarding Iraq?

Obviously the motivation for the change matters.  And of course, politicians don’t normally seek office in order to learn and decide on the job. They go with a set of values and political choices inside of them, which their voters have discerned in combination with the candidate’s character to best represent their interests. Do politicians, then, do a disservice by changing their positions? If they undergo a substantial change of position — say, even, a switch from one party to another — are they obligated to resign their position as representatives for their constituency?

I ask all these questions because in the past several years, many of my own positions on various issues have been shifting and evolving. When I hear about candidates changing their opinion on something, I often sympathize. You can speak with conviction about one side, and a short time later after further thought and with more information, you can speak with conviction about the other. Don’t we want our leaders to be thoughtful like that?

We live in strange times. Though enormous quantities of information travel at the speed of light, we still live in a world of imperfect information. We’ll never have all the details about everything, and in this age of the 24-hour, always-on news cycle, leaders encounter more and more pressure to have an answer — a perfect answer — right away, and to be consistent on that answer. Is that healthy for us as a nation?

Speak up.

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user Goombay.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:

- "Three Weeks To Go: Get Informed, America!", posted by Jarred on October 14, 2008

- "Party Foul: Facebook and “Political Views”", posted by Taylor on March 7, 2008

- "The Next “Decider”", posted by Jarred on April 5, 2008

- "Back on the Conference Circuit", posted by Taylor on July 17, 2008

- "How Blogging Changed Me (For the Better)", posted by Taylor on December 12, 2008

Viewing 5 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Sometime back when the 60s were turning into the 70s, counterculture figure and Yippie founder Jerry Rubin wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the United States would only leave Viet'nam when the embarrassment of staying outweighed the embarrassment of losing or leaving. I imagine that a similar concept applies to politicians today - that they will only abandon a flawed position when it is more embarrassing to keep the position than it is to fall on one's sword. Or whenever the position quits being profitable.
    • ^
    • v
    But that's exactly the point, Mike. Thoughtfully changing one's position shouldn't necessitate "falling on one's sword".

    It's a bit of a stretch, but I could argue that this "things are as they are and never change" mindset is promulgated by the sorry state of science education in the US today. You are allowed to change your "beliefs" once the evidence supports that change. But you can't talk about research, oh no. Sell it in terms of your feelings.

    Ignoring new knowledge (which both sides of the aisle are happy to do) doesn't make you "consistent" or "honest". Ignoring new knowledge makes your though process archaic, dated, unreliable, and false.
    • ^
    • v
    D'oh! I meant to close that bold tag. Could one of you guys fix that for me?
    • ^
    • v
    Done. Though I wasn't sure what you had intended to bold, so I've left it as a strong MIKE.
    • ^
    • v
    Wasn't advocating a position, just stating an observation. Should have added a word like "perception" in there, though, because many politicians do perceive eating crow in such a way, regardless of whether or not it is expedient and/or moral action. Embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes - "If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now." - Marcus Aurelius. Though I may just think that because I'm (internally) more stoic than most.
 
close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus