Today, I’d like to rant about something that’s been pissing me off ever since the Republican Convention in 2004, but that I hadn’t really been able to truly quantify until now. In short, as an electorate, we’ve become dangerously critical of politicians “flip-flopping” on the issues.

Now look, I’m just as guilty of going off this as anyone else. A few weeks ago, I ripped John McCain for flip-flopping on earmark spending when he supported the revised bailout bill. I’m not saying now that it’s always okay for a candidate to change positions (lest I be accused of, well, flip-flopping on flip-flopping). In fact, there are times when it’s completely within reason to slam a politician for flip-flopping. For instance, John Kerry in 2004. The main reason Kerry was ripe for criticism was because of his mind-numbing, poorly worded soundbite: “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” – not because he changed his mind on supporting the war. That quote made him sound wishy-washy and indecisive, and he was rightly attacked for it.

Worse than that, though, is when a politician changes positions and then denies ever having done so. That is true flip-flopping, and it’s what John McCain is doing with earmarks. He’s made earmarks a huge issue of his campaign, but then he supported a bill full of pork while still railing against out-of-control spending. He’s essentially at odds with himself, and can be attacked on the grounds that he has an inconsistent platform.

And of course, flip-flopping can be used to impugn a candidate’s judgment – to show that they’re incapable of making a firm decision. Some would argue that Obama’s quandary with the troop surge in iraq falls into this category. So, in short, flip-flopping is certainly something that a politician can be criticized for, provided that he or she appears wishy-washy or inconsistent with his or her own views or platform. 

However, by the same measure, I find it completely within reason for someone to admit they were wrong on something and change their mind later – the problem is, that’s not acceptable in America, because the President is expected to be absolutely right on everything at all times. But here’s the thing: every President makes mistakes. It happens. Some are bigger than others, sure, but no President is perfect.

Now, if you want to argue that guys like Lincoln and Washington were perfect and never erred, that’s fine – but the fact is, the world today is far more complex than anything those guys had to deal with. For instance, Lincoln was dealt one of the most difficult hands in American history with the Civil War – but imagine if he had to deal with a modern, globalized economy at the same time. Don’t you think he would’ve changed a few positions every now and then?

I mean come on, this idea that a president, or really any politician, must be absolutely steadfast and unwavering? That any time he or she makes a decision, they must see it through to the end, even if the ship has hit the iceberg and is sinking into the ocean depths? Seriously? Haven’t we been paying attention for the past eight years? We’ve just been through two terms of one of the most stubborn presidents in history, one who didn’t even admit he had made any mistakes whatsoever until his final year in office (and I’d argue that he hasn’t actually gone that far). When you have someone unwilling to admit flaws and mistakes, you get an administration with no oversight filled with yes-men. Moreover, changing one’s opinions and views is a sign of true growth and change as a person – what does it say that we seem to expect our leaders to be absolutely static and unchanging?

We may not like it when politicians change their minds. And I’m not saying I want to see the president make a bunch of “whoopsy-daisy” mistakes and be forced to change his tune every five minutes. But we need to give them some latitude. Being able to change course if something isn’t working is a huge part of finding eventual success. 

Think about it this way. When the United States first came into existence after the Revolutionary War, the first United States government was not bound by the Constitution, but by the Articles of Confederation – a weak, loosely connected association of states with little central power. It was so weak, in fact, that it was nearly destroyed by Shays’ Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787. Since the government didn’t have the power or ability to raise a standing army, the United States was almost over before it began. Clearly, the Articles of Confederation was a flawed document and government. But imagine if you sent the expectations of our pundits and our electorate back to 1787. Imagine if the Founding Fathers were forced to “stay the course” with a flawed system for fear of being pilloried if they didn’t. If that were the case, America likely wouldn’t exist today – certainly not in its current form. I know it’s hard for some to believe, but it’s possible for an unwillingness to change course to become more damaging than making a mistake in the first place.

If anything, our expectations of elected officials have gotten too high – and I find this strangely at odds with our society being so crushingly cynical about just about everything. As I said before, a big part of growing and changing is being able to admit when you’re wrong – and at a time when America needs to grow and change more than at any time since the Depression, we need to let our President admit that.

Well, if he’s willing to, that is.