To the editors:
In his January 19, 2012 commentary piece “Ideological Evolution,” Eric Meyers cogently and reasonably lays out the problems posed by “flip flopping” politicians and suggests that the electorate judge office-seekers by whether they changed positions due to political expediency or “further analysis,” suggesting the former should be met with criticism and the latter be praised.
While I agree with him in spirit, it’s important to remember that in a representative democracy, there is little to no difference between political expediency and being responsive to the wishes of one’s constituents. Don’t we want our elected officials to change their minds when we do? Unfortunately, voters today are seeking an impossible candidate: an elected official who is simultaneously steadfast and “principled” in his positions, yet who responds to the wishes of his constituents as their opinions change.
Between a rigid ideologue and a political “opportunist,” I’d take the opportunist every time; at least then the people’s voice is more likely to be heard than the personal opinions of some official.
Cheers,
Craig Alex Thorn
Class of 2004
