Sometime back when the 60s were turning into the 70s, counterculture figure and Yippie founder Jerry Rubin wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the United States would only leave Viet'nam when the embarrassment of staying outweighed the embarrassment of losing or leaving. I imagine that a similar concept applies to politicians today - that they will only abandon a flawed position when it is more embarrassing to keep the position than it is to fall on one's sword. Or whenever the position quits being profitable.
Austin
· 1 year ago
But that's exactly the point, Mike. Thoughtfully changing one's position shouldn't necessitate "falling on one's sword".
It's a bit of a stretch, but I could argue that this "things are as they are and never change" mindset is promulgated by the sorry state of science education in the US today. You are allowed to change your "beliefs" once the evidence supports that change. But you can't talk about research, oh no. Sell it in terms of your feelings.
Ignoring new knowledge (which both sides of the aisle are happy to do) doesn't make you "consistent" or "honest". Ignoring new knowledge makes your though process archaic, dated, unreliable, and false.
Austin
· 1 year ago
D'oh! I meant to close that bold tag. Could one of you guys fix that for me?
Taylor
· 1 year ago
Done. Though I wasn't sure what you had intended to bold, so I've left it as a strong MIKE.
Sierra Alpha Mike
· 1 year ago
Wasn't advocating a position, just stating an observation. Should have added a word like "perception" in there, though, because many politicians do perceive eating crow in such a way, regardless of whether or not it is expedient and/or moral action. Embarrassment is in the eye of the beholder, sometimes - "If thou art pained by any external thing, it is not this that disturbs thee, but thy own judgment about it. And it is in thy power to wipe out this judgment now." - Marcus Aurelius. Though I may just think that because I'm (internally) more stoic than most.
All Comments
It's a bit of a stretch, but I could argue that this "things are as they are and never change" mindset is promulgated by the sorry state of science education in the US today. You are allowed to change your "beliefs" once the evidence supports that change. But you can't talk about research, oh no. Sell it in terms of your feelings.
Ignoring new knowledge (which both sides of the aisle are happy to do) doesn't make you "consistent" or "honest". Ignoring new knowledge makes your though process archaic, dated, unreliable, and false.