Is programming feasible for those without methodical minds?

Why aren't people allowed to change their minds in politics without being branded a "flip-flopper"?

• Election time is somewhat fascinating to me- not in that I'm particularly interested in which candidate is more likely to false promise his or her way into office, but in the sense that I get a glimpse of what linguistic tricks they play, and what interests the population tends to have. One of the recurring concepts about politicians that comes up at election time and continues to baffle me is the chastising of candidates for "flip-flopping" on issues. If you're not familiar with that term, it's used to give a politician a negative label for taking a different position on an issue than he or she once did. It's typically used the in following context: "- That John Kerry guy is flip-flopper. In '91 he was against going to war with Iraq, but in 2003 he supported war with Iraq. President Bush may not be too articulate, but at least he sticks to his guns, and I like that." The most glaring problem with casting the flip-flopper label is that it criticizes people for changing their minds. Taking a new position on an issue doesn't make one an inconsistent person, it makes one a person whose brain is capable of accepting new data, or recognizing circumstantial shifts and allowing that information to reshape a pre-existing position. People are quick to criticize this in politics because they want to elect a person that's going to support the same things for the entirety of their time in office as he or she supported at his or her time of election. They don't want to elect someone currently running on a pro-life platform just to see him or her casting pro-choice votes from that office a year later. However, I find much more value and respect for those who are willing to change their minds than I do for those committed to sticking with whatever they once did or always have, just for the sake of consistency. If I have the choice between something that is willing to adjust its position based on the most current and relevant information or something that will always hold the same position no matter what data is presented or what circumstances present themselves, I'm inclined to choose the former. That's one reason I favor the humility of science so much over the tradition-rich arrogance of religion. A politician who's interested in fulfilling the duties of that position as well as possible isn't just there to do things the same way at all times. Were that the point we wouldn't needed senators or representatives to bother with casting votes on bills or anything else. We intentionally assign those roles to vote casting humans in the trust that they will recognize that what may have been an intelligent choice at one time and place may not remain the best choice for all future times and places. I would hope that if a senator supported an issue at one time and noticed that the passing of that issue wrought negative results to the region affected, that he or she would cast dissimilar votes on that same issue in the future in the best interest of those represented, based on the experiential enhancement of knowledge. A quality representative should also have a finger or two on the pulse of public opinion at all times. After all, political officials are supposed to be elected by the people in the interest of representing those people. A voting population is entitled to change its mind about things over the course of an elected tenure, and if it does, the elected official should shift support accordingly without fear of being branded as a flip-flopper in future elections. As for the merits of sticking to your guns, there's a time and a place for it, as there's a line to be tread between stubbornness and following through. If by sticking to their guns politicians actually saw to it that everything they said in order to be elected got done during their time in office, it would be a redeeming quality. But that's not what it means, and unfortunately flip-flopping doesn't refer to someone who promises to make all kinds of policies and then doesn't follow through with them. These labels refer to people changing their minds, or maybe even just changing the political support they offer on any given issues. I say it's time that we hold candidates accountable for actually following through with the promises they were elected to fulfill, and consider that the sticking to their guns, rather than wagging our fingers at those who change their minds, and calling them flip-floppers.

• Answer:

  It's just another meaningless phrase for one party to pummel the other. Both sides do it. Both sides should be hoping to draw people to change their minds to agree with them. But... it's more about the political short term score than the actual accomplishment.