The derogative (ie. political) “flip-flop” is an inconsistent phenomenon of modern day culture. Only in politics (and religion) is it considered a virtue not to change one’s mind despite evidence to the contrary. Watching the political goings-on in US these days it amazes me how the electorate attaches such great importance to the fossilization of opinions in their elected representatives. In our age of science you would think that casting off an old hypothesis in the face of new evidence would be regarded as honorable. This is the pattern in many other fields, why not politics? I think it should be considered a sign of deep consideration of the topic if a candidate were able to abandon his voting record and change his mind. But alas, it seems the common man is not interested in thoughtful nuance but in political obstinacy.
Note that I am emphatically not talking about WMD in Iraq. I am thinking more about elections in general, and the expectations of people and politicians.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « PKK in Kansas Update
- » Happy Holidays
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Edge: What have you changed your mind about? added these pithy words on Jan 03 08 at 1:43 pm[...] comment is particularly interesting as I posted on the topic just two weeks [...]
Dan tdaxp added these pithy words on 24 Dec 07 at 4:46 am
Only in politics (and religion) is it considered a virtue not to change one’s mind despite evidence to the contrary.Perhaps, but that’s irrelevent.
People are inherently anti-democratic, in that they oppose the idea that policies will be decided by compromises between factions that have power relative to degree that they can influence elections. People prefer a technocratic government, and are angered at signs that they do not have this (and indeed, that there is no prospect of some a government forming in the future).
If “flip-flopping” was visibly performed as a result of new evidence, you may have a point. But “flip-flopping” is rather a painful reminder of the powerlessness of facts in the face of political reality, not a sign that politicians are using the scientific method.
Joe added these pithy words on 24 Dec 07 at 10:47 amIt seems like more of an issue of broken promises. People vote for a candidate because they expect certain policies to be pursued. They don’t like it when the candidate fails to live up to the platform which got them elected, even if the circumstances have changed so as to make that platform obsolete.
Sort of like a breach of warranty, I guess. (I bought this because I thought it would cut taxes! What happened?!)
Thomas added these pithy words on 24 Dec 07 at 11:12 amOnly in politics (and religion) is it considered a virtue not to change one’s mind despite evidence.
And how funny is the attendant blending of the two in American elections?
Seriously, while I can’t vote for someone that entrenches themself with the first idea that comes to mind, I also can’t trust a politician that changes their mind with every minor shift in the beltway breeze. If we allow politicians unlimited room to change their position then we leave our them leeway to never take a stand on anything, which is no better.
Chief Wiggum added these pithy words on 24 Dec 07 at 4:38 pmPoliticians are held at the same level of public esteem as television preachers, pedophiles, whores and used car salesmen. When they “flip-flop.” they confirm the public’s low opinion of them. It’s an almost impossible job. No matter what they say or do, somebody’s going to hate their guts. The public arena is so brutal that many good people don’t want to subject themselves and their families to it. That may be why the profession seems to attract a lot of oddballs.
But, God bless ‘em. They are all that keep us from killing each other.
BTW, Merry Christmas to the CA guys and readers.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 24 Dec 07 at 11:13 pmJoe said “People vote for a candidate because they expect certain policies to be pursued.” which is reflects Dan’s comment that people “oppose the idea that policies will be decided by compromises between factions.” Allison’s Bureaucratic Model anyone?
Thomas gets to the meat of the issue: “If we allow politicians unlimited room to change their position then we leave our them leeway to never take a stand on anything, which is no better.”
Why? If a politician changes his position upon new evidence, and can clearly explain himself then what is the issue? Is it because the electorate cannot take the time to listen to a good explanation (ie. the politicians have to work in the medium of soundbytes)?
Merry Chrifsmas to you too Chief.
subadei added these pithy words on 26 Dec 07 at 12:17 amYH,
While I agree the ability of a politician to change his mind is paramount to effective leadership there remains a division between constructive reconsideration and convenient change of rhetoric for the purpose of political gain. This, I think, is where Thomas’ point holds merit.
Richard added these pithy words on 26 Dec 07 at 3:37 pmPerhaps Edmund Burke’s approach was best. Roughly, in representative democracy one elects a representative of intelligence, judgment, and integrity, who will use those qualities in legislating. One does not elect a narrow-minded advocate.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
