Changing minds and making mistakes
To the editor:
Rarely a day now goes by that we aren’t advised of one politician or another saying things today differently than in the past.
Minds change over time due to a host of factors. A reasonable person would take into consideration all the items that may impinge upon a situation. A variance in these conditions should allow for an adjustment to meet the new circumstances that are in play. People even change their religious beliefs for one reason or another so should it be so unusual for someone to also change their position on a given subject without penalty?
In a political environment this is a required talent given that trade deals and other types of treaties have a way of bringing together those that were once opponents but now have a common goal.
Our President should be one who considers the many valuable factors before making a decision. This is the true value of having a Cabinet of knowledgeable people. And yet, it is usual for someone to be excoriated because they have changed their stance from 20 years ago to that of the present. Changing one’s mind to employ new facts is a prudent quality for a decision maker. Our President needs this freedom to be effective.
But, instead of realizing that flexibility is useful, perhaps even commendable, we shy away from it as a lethal disease.
Political operatives, along with media reporters, dig ever deeper in their quest for “dirt” on a candidate. Past failures are heralded as reasons to discard this or that candidate as opposed to those failures being learning experiences. I am not optimistic that we will find anyone who has a perfect life history to guide this country. We must do with what is possible and not seek the improbable.
Is past performance a realistic predictor of future actions? Many questions are asked of the candidates on how they might support items of a (cause celebre) nature. These questions are usually not substantive but rather poised to cause reply to be of a newsworthy quality. Such items are better suited to discussion over cocktails rather than at a process designed to select suitable candidates. What is egregious behavior to one may not even register with another.
The country should come first, with party loyalty allowing for minor shifts in behavior between the parties. Today, each party is seeking absolute control of the country. The art of compromise has been forgotten. Radical departure would, without question, be a mistake. Hopefully we all learn from our mistakes but need not be one of them.
Joseph L. Kibitlewski, PhD.
Cape Coral