So inside that New Yorker cover there were articles. And some of them didn’t make sense.

They had this brand new thing on Obama’s…FLIP FLOP. Wait wait I’m not ready to board flip-flop-flapjack-dracula-attack-sub city again. Ok now I am. Now BBC News, which by the way, is notorious for their horrifying captions (case in point also: here. and here.) also came out with a lovely chart on Obama’s lil’ bag o’flops. Let’s take a look:

Surveillance programme

Mr Obama also raised eyebrows when he announced that he would not be opposing a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretap programme.

His decision angered many of his supporters on the left, who accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge “to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies”.

Gun control

When the Supreme Court decided to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, Mr Obama declared that the ruling “provide[d] much-needed guidance”, despite having previously argued (in a written answer that he says was drafted by an aide and which he had not approved) that the ban was constitutional.

Iraq

Withdrawing troops from Iraq has long been one of the central planks of Mr Obama’s campaign, and was something that set him apart from other Democratic candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination.

Since his campaign began, however, conditions in Iraq have changed, violence has reduced, and some commentators have suggested that Mr Obama’s position is out of date.

Mr Obama himself has announced that he plans to visit Iraq, where he will make “a thorough assessment” which could lead him to “refine” his policy.

Some critics have seized on this as an indication that Mr Obama is laying the groundwork for a change in position.

Free trade

Mr Obama recently hinted to Fortune magazine that his strong anti-free trade rhetoric during the primaries may not be reflected in his actual trade policy should he become president.

His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.

“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he said.

“Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.”

In the world of politics, such an admission, or apology, as the one above is a rare occurrence. This entire situation got me thinking about the role of apologies in the political realm. More thinking after the cut!

Public official are exactly that—public. They answer to their constituents and primarily serve the wills and needs of the people who elected them into office. So it’s critical for these officials to keep a good rapport with citizens in order to honor the essence of a true democracy. Blah Blah? Even when they make mistakes. Especially when they make mistakes.

It is human nature to commit an act and change your mind. Hey, I do it all the time. One time my co-worker tricked me into eating a cactus leaf, saying it was a great snack and would fortify my body with beta-carotene. Well maybe it did, but I would never eat that desert rose thorny piece of shit ever again. Now obviously public officials must call to a higher plane of circumstance. In every course of action they must be vigilant, wary and principally act because something is absolutely necessary. Yet even with all this intense planning and caution, they sometimes change their mind and realize they’ve made a mistake. And the most horrible transgression at that point is not choosing to admit this error to the public, and rather opting to keep the course.

But political obstinacy should not be treated as an asset. During the Kerry-Bush election back in 2004, a tornado-sized word arrived (flew?) into Kerry’s face: “wishy-washiness.” Gah! People called him out on his appalling tendency to “flip flop” on important decisions and courses of action. I never really understood this hunkydory. People called Kerry out because he voted to go to war in Iraq once, later saying it was a horrible decision because he had re-considered and changed his frame of thinking about the entire war. Critics then chose to say that Kerry was a man devoid of a backbone, and could easily be swayed whichever way the wind chose. In contrast, during that same election period, Bush never apologized for any of his political failures. Guantanamo, Iraq, WMDS. Rather he told the public that in times of trial, we should stick to our guns, remain true to our convictions, and simply stay the course. Many people admired Bush for his amazing resolve, claiming his incredible strength and his concrete focus was admirable.

Yet isn’t it a greater test of character for a politician to be wrong about a situation and change his mind rather than a politician to be wrong and stay the course? As wonderful columnist, turned cheesy novelist, Mitch Albom once wrote, when did stubbornness become a virtue? Now I’m not lending my support to either Kerry or Bush, as I thought neither of them was Zack Morris, who should always win for president. Rather this is a matter of pure principle. Most things aren’t black and white. Right or wrong. This or that. Often times, issues are so complex that as we get new information, as human beings we must change our minds. So when I hear Obama say those simple, wonderful words: I apologize, I think, for whatever reason he said that, I admire him. Because when a ship is headed the wrong direction, the worst possible offense is keeping the course.

Tags: apologies, flip flop, new yorker, wishy washy