Truth, then and now

JACK
I keep hearing about politicians "flip-flopping". It seems that they loose a lot of ground when they change direction. We live in a world that is constantly changing. Last year’s villains are this year’s good guys. It seems to me to be a fine line between an honest change of mind or heart and an irresponsible attitude of seeming to go with the wind. In the first days of the Kennedy administration, John Kennedy gave his full approval to our participation in the Bay of Pigs Invasion. It turned into a total disaster. Kennedy, looking very embarrassed, but determined, said he had made a mistake. He had accepted everything that the generals suggested and he would never again blindly accept the advice of the military. In the next three years before he was assassinated, Kennedy seemed to have cast off the bad press and was generally accepted. Unfortunately, we will never know how he would have done, but I felt that he made the right move by admitting his mistake and going on from there. Richard Nixon insisted on playing hardball and would not reverse his original statement on Watergate. After doing some remarkable work in China, he was the only President that resigned from office — he just could not get past the Watergate mistake.

HILLARY
Jack, are you honestly comparing political flip-flopping to apologizing for wrongdoings or finally catching up to a learning curve? I see a distinct difference. If someone goes down a road that leads them to a conclusion which they didn’t anticipate, I would hope that they would learn and not go that route again. But if a politician campaigns on a certain issue, and when asked directly about a particular subject, (like access to abortions,) and they say "I am pro-choice", and pro-choice voters put that person in office, that person has an obligation to those voters to maintain that stance. Now, I understand that someone may have a change of heart, and that they might reverse their thinking on something, perhaps they find a new religious conviction. I get it. But these people are representing voters who put them in office because they believed that they were going to uphold their values. I mean, are you really going to offer blanket forgiveness to someone who says they are like you, but in fact they are just saying they are like you to get your vote?

JACK
Let’s assume every politician is sincere and always tells the truth. I realize this is a flight of fantasy, but if we are on a crash course to disaster are you saying that an elected official should not ever change his course because of conditions? In 1941, FDR gave a speech in which he assured Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a war. After Pearl Harbor, he certainly could not say I cannot respond because I made a campaign promise not to go to war. If, for example, in 2007, George Bush was convinced by the facts that he was pursuing the wrong course in Iraq because he learned that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. If he honestly believed that, would he be wrong to reverse his direction?

HILLARY
Of course not. But I think we’re talking about two different things. FDR gave his speech before we were attacked — this was new information. Bush, given the facts on the ground 4 years later, could have some evidence that changes his mind on the course in Iraq. I am talking about a politician claiming to advocate a Flat Tax or to say that their 20 year record is Pro-Choice, or that they are in favor of school vouchers — people get elected based on these types of positions and if they get in office, and then suddenly says wait, maybe a flat tax isn’t the way to go. I know I campaigned for it — sorry. They owe it to the people who elected them to base their term on the platform that they stumped on. And, if there is some new evidence that perhaps has changed their mind, then they should go to their constituents and persuade them that this position now is the right one.

JACK
My point is not to argue what is right or wrong, or how much evidence is needed for a reversal of a position, I feel that I have been very fortunate in my business career to have my decisions only affect money and not to decide on life or death for people. In the course of business, one of the oldest sayings is when you see a disaster ahead, cut your losses and reverse field. I am not saying that Nixon, Kennedy, Bush, or Roosevelt was right or wrong. I merely posing the question — if they are convinced they have led us on the wrong path do they not have, not only the right, but also the need to act in accordance of where their conscience is in the most current period of time?

HILLARY
As long as they are willing to take that change to the American people and let them respond. Otherwise, we do not have a representative democracy, we have a dictatorship.

JACK
I totally disagree with you. A leader is put in office to lead and most often he neither has the time nor the capacity to take his case to the people, and when the emergency happens he has to act. When the hurricane hits you must move immediately. We do not have the luxury of time or taking polls. Sometimes the decision must be made immediately. My point, however, is that the past is memory and the future is mystery. I am interested in the present. Our leaders must respond to what is happening right now. I certainly want honesty, but I want it with the best information that exists at the present moment.

HomeSite Map

Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.