opinions-political-whatIWouldDoIfIWerePresidentOfTheUnitedStatesOfAmerica-chapterIOnOpenmindedness

Chapter I: On openmindedness

Although I will take very specific stands in this book, I would reserve the right to change my mind if I were President.

Waffler!

People make fun of a candidate for "waffling" for "flip-flopping" for "chasing the polls" for not "taking a stand".

This arises from valid concerns. One of the big problems with our democracy is that candidates refuse to say, specifically, what they intend to do if they are elected.

However, there is also something wrong with punishing someone for "waffling". Do you want a President who refuses to listen to anyone she or he disagrees with, who refuses to compromise with anyone, even if 70% of Americans don't like what she or he is doing? Do you want a President who is incapable of learning and adapting to new situations, who does the same thing over and over again even if it doesn't work?

Of course not.

It would be better if people would reward the opposite behavior. Imagine if a candidate loses a debate over health care reform, then over the next few months, talks to a lot of people and reads some books and then announces publically, "You know what, I think my opponent was right. I'm going to adopt his health care plan".

That would be incredible. That would be evidence that this person is an intelligent, reasonable guy. She or he might make a good President.

Now, some people might see this as evidence that the candidated who changed his mind didn't know very much about health care. But what about the other candidate? The other candidate probably doesn't know much about health care either. Both candidates probably have a handful of issues that they know a lot about, and then let their aides tell them what to say about everything else.

Other people might say they WANT a stubborn President. There are two reasons commonly given for this. One is often termed leadership -- we want a man who is courageous enough to have strong beliefs, and to "stay the course". I think a better leader is one who is courageous enough to do what's best for the country, even if it means admitting that they were wrong.

The second reason is that people feel that one candidate is on their side. If you think that the candidate that choice A is a good idea and choice B is a bad idea, then don't you want the candidate to support choice A as stubbornly as possible? Even if half the country like choice B?

I will try to convince you that in fact, you should want the candidate to compromise in this situation. This is the subject of the next chapter.