Saturday, January 25, 2014

Political consistency and a willingness to change one's mind

Some guys and I were hanging out last night and we discussed politics briefly.  The subject was Chris Christie and whether his presidential run in 2016 was already over before it started due to the latest controversy.  I happen to respect Governor Christie even while I am a Democrat because I think he’s one of the few politicians who actually reaches across the aisle.  This seems to be lacking in today’s politics to a large extent it seems and I think we would be wise to vote more of these types of people in.  Not that I’m endorsing a Republican or anything, just that we need both parties to work across the aisle more.

One of the guys commented how anytime a politician makes a decision and passes a law, there are unintended consequences.  There have to be when you’re passing laws that are going to effect 300 million people, right?  The unfortunate thing in politics is that a politician can’t say he was wrong and try another route, at least not without being labeled a flip-flopper like Romney was and many others have been as well.

Why are we willing to forgive ordinary people for their faults but not politicians?  I’m not defending politicians here necessarily, I’m simply pontificating on what I think would happen if one of them were to admit they were wrong and made a terrible mistake and are now taking steps to right that wrong.  Whether it was Bush who should’ve said he was wrong about Iraq and pulled out much sooner or Obama who should’ve said he was wrong about the Affordable Care Act; our political climate simply doesn’t allow for our leaders to admit their mistakes and weaknesses.

I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather elect someone who saw something they did as wrong and as a result tried to fix it rather than someone who bulldozed ahead with a project even when it was clearly not working.  I heard Tony Campolo talk back in 2008 about how the way forward in Iraq was to repent, to admit we were wrong and take a new way forward.  He advocated for the Arab armies to take over, an Arab League or something I think is what was around at the time?  Then there’s Obamacare, which as someone pointed out to me recently, it’s a good thing in a way that Obama is going to make sure it works because I’m a direct beneficiary of it.  However, maybe there is a different way forward for healthcare?

In 2010 the Tea Party influenced the election quite a bit and most of the candidates were elected because they wouldn’t compromise on issues.  Well, look how well that turned out.  We had a bit of a hassle with a government shutdown with plenty of blame to cast on both parties, but polls show the House suffered the biggest loss in political support.  Isn’t it a sign of maturity that one is willing to change when presented with new information?  Some wrongly see this as a sign of weakness so allow me to elaborate a bit.


Slavery was seen as a Biblically defensible practice for quite some time in our history.  When people were presented with new information though, they started to change, and that was a good thing, right?  For much of history, women were seen as nothing more than a mere possession like a donkey or mule.  Now we see they can contribute more to an economy than men in some instances whether in the first world or third world and so we pass laws that give women more rights, and that’s a good thing, right?  

My point is that we should be teachable in the least and willing to change our minds when presented with new information.  This should not be seen as a sign of weakness.  Perhaps it’s a sign of weak-mindedness to view a change of mind as a weakness.  I know I’ve been guilty of this countless times, have you?

No comments: