Earlier this week, I committed an unpardonable political offense. This offense reminded me of the fact that I would virtually be eaten alive as a politician. The unpardonable offense: I changed my mind.
As a freshman last year, I was strongly against the idea of anything “green.” I touted the importance of domestic oil companies, laughed at the inefficiencies of certain early alternative energy sources, and even denied the severity of our energy problems and their economic implications. Many of my arguments were grounded in legitimate logic, but many were purely cultural; I didn’t want to dirty my “staunch conservative” image.
Over the past year, though, I’ve realized the importance of ending our addiction to foreign oil. Everything from my college classes to news articles to even Gregory Poole’s well-reasoned argument in yesterday’s Crimson White have led me to change my mind and become a supporter of “going green.”
Luckily, as a college student and opinion columnist, I have the luxury of changing my mind. It is ridiculous, however, that politicians are not afforded this same opportunity. When politicians change their minds, they are quickly labeled as “flip-floppers” and characterized as spinelessly indecisive.
What human being, though, does not change his or her mind? Politicians are surely allowed to change their minds on the minutia of daily life as they uncover new information, so why can’t they do the same with larger political decisions?
Our inflexibility in allowing politicians to change their minds is a toxic blockade to our success as a country. George W. Bush’s eight years in office were a perfect example of this. When we went to war with Iraq, there was a large consensus and comparatively few strongly dissenting voices. Because we hadn’t even begun the search for weapons of mass destruction, we were simply unaware that we wouldn’t find any.
As the war dragged on for years, however, we didn’t find what we were looking for. Though Saddam Hussein was toppled and progress was made in many areas, it is safe to say, regardless of your political leaning, that we discovered new challenges in fighting insurgency and that the majority’s opinion on the war slowly turned from positive to negative.
Even if Bush wanted a full-out withdrawal of troops, however, he would have never been able to do this politically because people have such a disdain for political mind-changing. To admit that he changed his views on the war would have cost Bush so much support that it would have rendered him practically ineffective on other domestic issues he surely cared deeply about.
President Obama faces this challenge as well. If his health care plan ends up causing great harm to our economy, he will never have the chance to admit it or do anything about it. Obama cannot predict the future with complete accuracy, and he will know much more a year from now than he does today, simply by tracking the effects of his policies. I myself have no clue how effective or destructive Obama’s health care legislation will be, but I can say with almost absolute certainty that he will be forced to stand by it, no matter the results.
Analyzing the likely future effects of political actions is, of course, essential, but allowing our politicians the liberty to react to these effects appropriately is just as important.
Though quarterbacks and football coaches will pore over the opposing team’s film the entire week before the game and draw up plays they think will be effective, they often learn, within even the first few minutes of the actual game, that they will need a completely different strategy. Imagine a defensive coordinator who kept calling blitzes because that was “what he was known for” despite the fact that the opposing team’s quarterback was picking him apart. That coordinator would be fired in a week.
Granted, not all inflexibility is bad. Politicians should surely be able to hold unwavering moral stances. These stances, however, are a product of one’s natural character and are typically not overturned by any piece of future evidence. No quantifiable statistic will change a politician’s stance on the morality of abortion.
Politicians can be inflexible in their morality, however, and flexible in their reactions to results. Obama could openly admit to changing his mind on his previous health care proposals, while still holding the deep conviction that every American deserves affordable health care. Similarly, Bush could admit to changing his mind on the effectiveness of the Iraq war while still openly sticking to the deep conviction that every nation should be allowed to experience democracy.
I long for a day when politicians can actually be reasonable in this way, but as of now, the two examples above would never take place. Our country will be much better off, however, when they do.
Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship. His column runs on Fridays.
