That last political post was supposed to go down a different road, but I got sidetracked when I started typing about seeing Romney. Before I do Take II, I want to give a shout-out to Maggie and Frank who answered my trivia question about running mates!
So. Major election coming up in November. Hold your breath and get excited for the upcoming onslaught of promises, attacks, and counter-attacks. I love the energy that grips the nation at this time of year. I hate the partisan lines that get drawn and the foolish inflexibility follows them.
I'm pretty sure I have linked to Leah Libresco at Equally Unyoked before, but since I found her blog it has become hearty food for thought, so you will keep seeing her. She wrote about her experience in a debate group that focused on not just valid but true and convincing arguments -- and the value they found in admitting that they had been wrong.
Leah did not take the topic into national politics, but I want to. Consider Romney's stance on abortion and the flack he is getting for changing it. This issue showcases the Catch-22 of US politics: if you are wrong (and we are all bound to be at some point), you can hold on to the wrong for dear life and be consistent, or you can change views and be thought a flip-flopper. (Is that a word? It should be.)
While we certainly need a leader who can stand strong and firm, there is virtue in taking in new information and letting it inform your views. As Leah points out, there is virtue in knowing how to handle being wrong.
I have respect for people changing their position when they genuinely believe that their previous position was incorrect. The thing with Romney is that the timing makes it look suspiciously like he changes his positions because it is politically convenient without regard to their truth. That I don't respect so much.
ReplyDelete