Waffle

Nobody likes a waffler. Or a flip-flopper. Americans are incredibly critical of politicians who change their views as campaigns march forward. When a politician re-states an opinion or amends a policy that even suggests a switch, voters boo and hiss and rivals take the opportunity to lash out against their opponent.

I'd like to propose a new lens in which to examine this phenomenon.

What if re-examined proposals signaled a leader who was capable of making calculated decisions as information presented itself? What if policies with a new bent were a sign of political growth and, as one presidential hopeful pushes, true change?

Though I disagree with his ultimate decision, Obama's recent declaration of sending more troops to Afghanistan (once witnessing the vulnerable infrastructure and population and contradicting his former wish of a troop withdrawal from the region) is one example of a politician changing his mind in an educated fashion.

A politician who is static is a danger in my book. Inflexibility leads to mistakes. Politicians are in a pivotal position where they (if they choose to listen) are privy to an enormous amount of information crucial in making national and, subsequently, global decisions. This information changes rapidly and someone unable to analyze and act accordingly ultimately is, at best, incompetent and, in worst case scenarios, endangering individuals, societies and environments.

Looking at wafflers through the lens of "average" America it's clear why a politician who ventures into the realm of changed opinion is subject to attack. Currently, it signifies someone inexperienced, indecisive, and weak of character. But static politicians are capable of covering up lies (see Bush and WMDs in Iraq) or pushing ulterior agendas (see Bush and any Middle East occupation).

Granted, there should be some expectations of politicians as they act as executive (or legislative) powers and practice educated, sometimes changing, decision making. Politicians need a foundation of principles voters can use to measure future decisions. Transparency is critical so that citizens can gauge whether a politician is being influenced by private interests or bureaucratic peer pressure. Politicians should not use this practice as a way of pandering to voters to earn a majority win.

Of course, having written this, I don't believe any politician is capable of honestly practicing a change of mind in policy decisions all the time. Though there are times when a politician uses his or her career as an opportunity for learning, growth, and change for themselves and the nation, they usually are, aptly, a waffle.