Just once, I’d like to hear a politician say . . .

Just once, I’d like to hear a politician say . . .

“When you’re finished changing, you’re finished.” – Benjamin Franklin

I keep waiting for that moment. I keep waiting for a candidate to walk on stage and openly explain – without hesitation, with no hint of trepidation – that they’ve changed their mind.  Our candidate might then explain why, based on new data, fresh analysis and advice from the world’s leading experts that they’ve now arrived at a more strategic solution, a more educated approach.  How sensible.  How realistic.  How rare.

Throughout society, we rely on research and analysis to improve performance and yield better outcomes. We learn, we adapt, we grow, we evolve. So why are our politicians so afraid to change their mind? We’re encouraged, these days, to become lifelong learners, capable of learning new skills and adapting our path. The goal? To live a better life, to make more educated decisions. Shouldn’t this apply to the political realm?

Yet there, on stage, politicians are reluctant to shift their stance. Often asked by members of the media: “But back in 1996, didn’t you once say that you were in favor of that amendment?” Perhaps so. Perhaps, back in 1996, based on available information, a vote in favor of the amendment was appropriate. But now, 20 years later, armed with a wealth of new data and experience, a new position evolves, easily justified, easily defended.

But it just doesn’t happen. 

In the real world, of course, we’re constantly changing our stance, our opinion, our approach based on the latest information, fresh analysis and life experience. Supplements offer a fine example.  Years ago, we may have openly criticized their contribution, but, for many, scientific research and personal experience has reshaped our opinion, allowing us to embrace their benefits.

Is consistency overrated?

The central issue, of course, is the matter of consistency. Might it be overrated? Consistency certainly is essential when we talk about human safety (e.g., airline crews). And it’s highly desirable when we talk about services (e.g., police officers, electricians, dry cleaners). But when it comes to personal opinions and policy decisions, consistency often binds us. In the cogitative world of thoughts, feelings and beliefs, we often fall into the trap of believing that consistency, above all, must be preserved. And that trap is ever-present on the campaign trail, where candidates ardently defend former positions (e.g., on immigration, taxation and foreign engagements, to name a few).

So once, just once, I’d like to hear a candidate explain precisely why their position has changed.  It might go something like this:

“My fellow citizens. I’m calling this press conference to explain that I’ve changed my position on two critical areas of concern – national security and education.  The changes that I am about to announce are a direct result of intense and studied analysis of the facts. Over the last year, I’ve talked at length with a broad cross-section of Americans, seeking input and fresh ideas from leaders in business and academia, from both conservative and liberal think tanks.  They have studied, in depth, our country’s performance over the last 30 years. And their conclusions and recommendations are based on this critical analysis. 

“So, yes, the position and opinions that I am about to express are different from what they were 10 years ago, and even, in some ways, one year ago. I consider it my duty, my honor, my pledge as a candidate, to seek out the best solutions possible, to move our country forward. We must constantly be open to new ideas, to find better ways to defend our borders, educate our children, navigate foreign trade, and embrace foreign cultures. If we cling to the past, we may ignore the latest findings and miss opportunities to advance. With this in mind, here are the steps that I am now recommending.”

Anyone?

##