Running for (or winning) office apparently causes learning to stop in politicians.

My grandmother taught me that "a wise man will change his mind, a fool never will".

Perhaps she was paraphrasing Bertrand Russell, who wrote: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”


One would think that running for office, perhaps moving into the inner circle in Washington, would expose one to a world of new information. New information on which to improve your decision-making. Information that helps you view an issue from a new perspective.

But if a politician changes his/her mind on an issue, he/she is accused of "flip-flopping" and being inconsistent.

Doesn't it make sense that some would change their minds on some issues? But it never seems to happen.

I can't ever recall seeing a politician say "I learned something new today, and it made me re-think ...". Indeed, such a statement would be used to label them as "weak".


When a politician wins an election 51-49 I don't believe they have an obligation to hold exactly to the principles they espoused during the campaign (or even if they win in a landslide - things change).


Seems that learning and re-examining one's views should be seen as a positive attribute in candidates. Maybe that's just me.

Any more its all about sound bytes....

It sounds to me as though you are supporting politicians who go exactly against their campaign promises, or at least excusing them.

Can you say "Public option"?

Sure, I knew you could.

... to be read as "supporting politicians who go exactly against their campaign promises".


It was my intent to speak against the mind-set that learning and re-thinking your views is a bad thing.

I understood what you were actually trying to say but I was pointing out how that concept can be used to excuse politicians who break explicit campaign pledges with impunity (which they pretty much do anyway, see option, public).

Political calculation is by far the most common reason for politicians to change their positions, a genuine change of heart based on things other than political calculation is far more rare in my view.

Your OP was not so badly written, I just have somewhat different perspective, a cynical one it's true but I think my view is fairly accurate.

Politicians do politics which is all about political advantage and far less about facts and logic.

On the pot question, Obama and his appointees are consciously and deliberately lying about well proven scientific evidence and using "logic" that a smart fifth grader could demolish in moments.

more local politics than national. I have interacted with so many people in entry level politics who find their exposure to new people, new ideas, new concepts pretty much forces them to re-examine their point of view.

I don't discount the affect of political expediency, but I do know being thrown in with people who have different ideas and different information than you can't help but make a difference in your thinking to some degree.

ETA: I also know two U.S. Reps whose experience as freshmen representatives massively changed their views on some issues precisely because of dialogue with others who had different perspectives. Their situations didn't involve campaign promises, just a growing awareness their own narrow way of thinking about things perhaps wasn't the most appropriate when looking at it with a bigger lens.

There are few national level politicians that vaulted into those positions without going through the minor leagues..

I know full well I do not have the same views in my forties that I did in my thirties or twenties. I would actually be very suspicious of someone who didn't demonstrate growth and change over time.

Sadly, we have a media that does not allow for reasoned explanation of one's change in perspective and a political culture that demonizes position-change.

It's almost impossible for a politicians to say, "Of course it's true I have changed my stance on this issue and here's why. ...." All we'll read is "Candidate X admits to being a flip flopper."

Doing a 180 from campaign promises after being elected is entirely another.

That, to me, is an entirely different matter than a politician's perspective evolving over the course of a career because of exposure to new ideas and information. THAT is what I thought the OP was addressing.

I suspect we'd agree entirely when it comes to reneging on campaign promises.

"One would think that running for office, perhaps moving into the inner circle in Washington, would expose one to a world of new information."

The inner circle in Washington is where a lot of our problems with dysfunctional government come from. I see this sentence implicitly saying that there is seekrit info that makes it necessary for politicians to sell out to the 1% when they hit DC, I know the OP didn't mean it that way but that's my take on it.

I interpreted it very differently, but I can see your point.

I once heard a politician say that almost every person who enters politics does it for some altrustic purpose..."to make the world a better place". It's when they become caught up in the process that that idealism is twisted as politics goes from a passion to a profession. Principals fall or are compromised when one's financial security is threatened. The longer a politician is "vested" in the system the more removed they get from many of their initial ideals and more to the "political realities" (translation: keeping their jobs and lifestyle).

Today our political system has gone from one that legislates to one that is constantly running for office...and with it a cadre of hanger-oners (the pundit class) all driven by the money that not only keeps the politician in office but now funds a large political operation of his/her own. This will continue until there's serious campaign reform...not just about the financing but of the endless campaign seasons that have been a major factor to the gridlock we're now facing. But that requires politicians not being politicians...

:rofl:

sadly, he just changes with the wind.

You are falsely believing that they change their minds via new evidence or new reasoning.

no, they change their mind to what is most politically advantageous to them.

never ever mistake an opportunist with a wise man. My father taught me that one.