During the presidential candidate debates last weekend, there was an issue (if it can be called that) that showed up in both Republican and Democratic debates.

In the Republican debate, moderator Charles Gibson asked the following question (if it can be called that) of Rudolph Giuliani:

“Because with all due respect, many of your fellows here on this stage have said you’ve had to moderate an awful lot of your views to get within the mainstream of the Republican Party and that you don’t believe now what you believed when you were mayor.
Gov. Huckabee, you’ve been accused of having been a tax-and-spend governor when you were in Arkansas and changing your beliefs now. Gov. Romney, I don’t have to go into how many times they’ve called you a flip-flopper in terms of issues and what you believed as governor of Massachusetts. Congressman Paul, respect to you, I don’t know that you’ve changed much except your party because you were a Libertarian when you first ran for president. Senator Thompson has been accused of running on a more conservative record for president than when he was in the Senate. And Senator McCain, you’ve been accused of moderating your views on the Bush tax policies in order to get into the mainstream of the party and on immigration to moderate your views.”

In the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton said, “You know, Senator Obama has been – as the Associated Press described it – he could have a pretty good debate with himself, because four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care. Then he proposed a health care plan that doesn’t cover everybody.” Barack Obama replied, “I have been entirely consistent in my position on health care.”

When did it become an indictable offense for a politician to change his or her mind? For instance, if there’s anyone in public life who should understand the need to be flexible on health care, it’s Hillary Clinton.

Granted, no one should be promiscuous in changing positions, since it raises a question about whether there is any fixed star in his universe. This is what Mitt Romney has been accused of, because of the sheer number of positions he has switched. (John McCain got one of the big laughs of the night when he said, “I just wanted to say to Governor Romney, we disagree on a lot of issues, but I agree, you are the candidate of change.”) Nevada once had a governor named Robert List who changed his mind about the Beatty nuclear waste dump, a sales tax hike, the need for a state consumer advocate, whether Nevada should host the MX missile system, and numerous other issues. Not surprisingly, List served only one term.

There are changes of mind and there are changes of mind. Some may reflect a lack of principle – some would put the abortion issue in that category. But others, usually involving programs rather than principle, simply reflect a learning curve. Do we really WANT politicians who don’t change their minds?

John Kennedy changed his mind about the U.S. policy of belligerence in the cold war, Lyndon Johnson changed his mind about civil rights, Richard Nixon changed his mind about China, Ronald Reagan switched from Democratic to Republican, George Bush the Elder changed his mind about raising taxes to pay off the deficit.

There may also be legitimate reasons to change positions when changing constituencies. Howard Dean supported the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada when he was governor of Vermont and needed to do something about the wastes at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Vernon. But as a presidential candidate he said he needed to represent a broader constituency and changed his position.

One of the frustrations of citizens during the Vietnam war was that politicians on both sides of the issue dug in their heels and were unwilling to change when both they and the public learned more about the conflict. Not until the nation was torn apart by bitter divisions did the Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, reexamine his policies. Today a Republican president is equally unbending.

There can be a fine line between conviction and dogmatism.

Pahrump Valley Times
January 9 2008