Stop With the Gotchas

It's one of those things that news reporters these days love to write stories about and really I don't think it helps anyone. You see headlines like:

After Voting Against Stimulous Funding Governor Celebrates Program That Would Not Have Happened Without It

or:

2011 Senator: "Don't Fund UN," 2004 Senator: "Fully Fund UN"

There's just no there there. It's noise and it makes the candidate look foolish, but it doesn't really tell us anything about them.

Not taking advantage of programs you opposed would be stupid. I can see very clearly how a governor might have an ideological objection to a piece of legislation, publicly come out against it, and then still utilize the funding that came through over their objection. You have to live in the world we're in. That world includes that money and probably there are a lot of other things arranged around that money that need it for them to function properly.

I feel like its a much bigger story when someone opposes something, loses and then doesn't make use of the funds anyway. We're seeing that a lot around the health reform legislation. Where governors of states with dire financial situation are refusing federal funds on principle. That to me is a story. That someone thought there shouldn't be extended unemployment and then allowed the spending to go through after they lost, that's not a story that's pragmatism. We need more pragmatism.

That one is only slightly less ridiculous than trying to catch someone in a waffle with years between their statements. Just because someone was on one side of an issue years ago doesn't mean they have to be on the same side of the issue now, and that they aren't doesn't necessarily say something nefarious about their financial backers.

Believe it or not, the world changes as time goes by. Not having your positions evolve as the world changes would be foolish. So someone used to be in favor of something they now aren't. The economy isn't the same as it was, the world map isn't the same as it was, the makeup of the government isn't the same as it was. There are plenty of reasons for someone to change their position.

I think one of the biggest reasons peoples' positions change has to do with their own personal status. Someone without wealth acquires wealth, now all of a sudden they have opinions where they might not have. Informed opinions? Maybe, maybe not. Biased opinions? Maybe, maybe not. But it is perfectly reasonable for their position to change. Someone changes their job and their positions change. Someone has kids and their positions change. Someone buys a house and their positions change.

We all don't know everything all the time. If our positions didn't change with our experience that would be suspect. That they do change. That's pragmatism. We need more pragmatism.

Instead of calling out people for having their positions change maybe we could spend more time evaluating the voracity of their positions as is. How committed are they to the idea? How reputable is the idea to begin with? Is this a good idea? Who cares if they haven't always felt that way, what matters is how they will govern now.