Remember Aesop’s Fables? The rabbit learned that slow and steady wins the race. The boy who cried wolf learned he shouldn’t lie. And we learned these lessons.
Or did we?
Here’s a new fable: Once upon a time, American leaders repeatedly made hasty decisions about military interventions in the Middle East. It didn’t go so well. Barack Obama observed these mistakes and became president. He tried to tread carefully when faced with the possibility of military intervention.
Lesson learned? On Obama’s part, sure. But for the rest of us, not quite. Over the past few weeks, negative commentary about Obama’s “indecision” has inundated the media.
The St. Petersburg Times gives him “a full flop” for contradicting a statement about force he made in 2007.
And National Review reports that because he consulted with others before taking a stance, “our commander-in-chief is an effete vacillator who is pushed around by his female subordinates," fueling controversy about sexist political commentary.
In response, Slate declares that these women are not “emotional, estrogen-addled interventionists,” but rather maintain “consistent policy positions,” as we all know a good politician should.
Of course, we should avoid generalizations about women. But we should also avoid generalizations about those who take time to think things through.
Each example above follows a trend in American political commentary: the assumption that changing one’s mind is a sin.
According to The Christian Science Monitor, archives from The New York Times list 251 specific uses of the term “flip flop” since 1851.
Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and John McCain only begin the list of politicians facing constant attacks for changing positions.
A CBS News list of “Kerry’s Top Ten Flip Flops” calls John Kerry out for changing his mind — sometime between 2004 and 2009 — on issues like the war in Iraq.
After five years of new information and reflection, a person reached new conclusions? And even worse, he was honest about changing his mind? Unacceptable, declares the public. We never change our minds like that.
But this public, so unfamiliar with reflection and honesty, could use a good dose of it.
If an inconsistency clearly indicates a politician’s lack of honesty, the public has every right to outrage. And if repeated inconsistencies illuminate a politician’s ignorance, voters should hold him or her accountable.
But in each of those cases, dishonesty and ignorance pose the problem — not inconsistency. Criticisms of contradictions themselves reveal the public’s laziness.
Obama’s ability to wait for an international consensus before fully supporting intervention in Libya demonstrates patience and attention to detail, not cowardice. In fact, the ability to act in contradiction of previous assertions takes great courage and humility — especially in the face of a public just waiting to declare inconsistency.
We should admire the ability to research, to synthesize new knowledge, to change one’s mind, and to publicly admit it.
Instead of cooperating with indolent journalists and a proud society, consider the implications next time “flip flop” is called.
Change Alex’s mind at algrego@asu.edu
