'Backflipping' or responding to changed circumstances? Graham Ring takes a look at Australian politics, and the media and opposition obsession with 'gotcha moments'.
As a seven year old I was very keen on a breakfast cereal called Sugar Frosties. They were corn flakes doused in as much sugar as could possibly adhere to a flake of cereal. But my palate and I have both aged considerably since then. Now I find the idea of eating Sugar Frosties to be revolting.
I had changed my mind. There were two reasons. In a nation where obesity is the new normal, I had a growing awareness that doing little exercise while consuming refined sugar by the truckload was likely to have ugly consequences. But more importantly, I simply lost my childish taste for sickly sweet things. I have not been condemned for my revisionist position on Sugar Frosties.
The ability to change our mind (and the dexterity offered by the opposable thumb) are two things that we humans really have going for us. But let’s put our digital dexterity aside for the moment and focus on our capacity to change our minds – or more generally, to reason.
After new evidence emerges on an issue, or after circumstances change, it may be entirely appropriate for us to re-assess our view about a matter. It may even be that after deep consideration about existing evidence, we genuinely decide to change our position. This is sometimes thought to be a brave and sophisticated course of action.
Unless you are a politician. Elected leaders who change their mind are ‘backflipping’, and in doing so demonstrating that they are unworthy, conniving souls, unfit for public office. Mind you, I’m not advocating ‘doing a Derryn’. Senator Hinch’s recent performance in adopting four different positions on the backpacker tax in the space of four days did little to inspire confidence in his ability, or in the ability of politicians more generally.
It is unnerving – and wrong - for politicians to change their minds frequently without substantiating each new position. We are entitled to expect our elected representatives to have the courage of their convictions, and to stand up for their beliefs, even when opinion polls and focus groups run against them.
Australian politics is plagued by ‘gotcha moments’ where politicians are seen to be caught out in a direct contradiction with something they had said earlier. This is the favoured terrain both of current affairs reporters and opposition members participating in parliamentary question time. In both cases the objective is to throw damning quotes in the faces of ministers as evidence of their infidelity: ‘Minister you said yesterday that you prefer coffee to tea. I now seek leave to table an interview from Style Magazine in 1977 when you stated explicitly that you were a tea-drinker by choice. Minister this demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are a lying, deceiving scoundrel who cannot be trusted about anything. You must now make a full public apology, resign your office immediately and return all of your salary to consolidated revenue.’
There are less trivial examples. A recently elected prime minister’s assurance that ‘there will be no new taxes in my first year of government’ may need to be revisited if revenues from other sources unexpectedly dry up. A genuine and significant change in circumstance may demand a different response for the well-being of the country. We should applaud rather than upbraid leaders who respond skilfully to changed circumstances. That said, politicians should be wary of making blanket promises.
To change one’s mind on occasion, after thoughtful consideration of evidence old and new, is a mark of courage and intellect. Let’s not discourage it.
Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.
I had changed my mind. There were two reasons. In a nation where obesity is the new normal, I had a growing awareness that doing little exercise while consuming refined sugar by the truckload was likely to have ugly consequences. But more importantly, I simply lost my childish taste for sickly sweet things. I have not been condemned for my revisionist position on Sugar Frosties.
The ability to change our mind (and the dexterity offered by the opposable thumb) are two things that we humans really have going for us. But let’s put our digital dexterity aside for the moment and focus on our capacity to change our minds – or more generally, to reason.
After new evidence emerges on an issue, or after circumstances change, it may be entirely appropriate for us to re-assess our view about a matter. It may even be that after deep consideration about existing evidence, we genuinely decide to change our position. This is sometimes thought to be a brave and sophisticated course of action.
Unless you are a politician. Elected leaders who change their mind are ‘backflipping’, and in doing so demonstrating that they are unworthy, conniving souls, unfit for public office. Mind you, I’m not advocating ‘doing a Derryn’. Senator Hinch’s recent performance in adopting four different positions on the backpacker tax in the space of four days did little to inspire confidence in his ability, or in the ability of politicians more generally.
It is unnerving – and wrong - for politicians to change their minds frequently without substantiating each new position. We are entitled to expect our elected representatives to have the courage of their convictions, and to stand up for their beliefs, even when opinion polls and focus groups run against them.
Australian politics is plagued by ‘gotcha moments’ where politicians are seen to be caught out in a direct contradiction with something they had said earlier. This is the favoured terrain both of current affairs reporters and opposition members participating in parliamentary question time. In both cases the objective is to throw damning quotes in the faces of ministers as evidence of their infidelity: ‘Minister you said yesterday that you prefer coffee to tea. I now seek leave to table an interview from Style Magazine in 1977 when you stated explicitly that you were a tea-drinker by choice. Minister this demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are a lying, deceiving scoundrel who cannot be trusted about anything. You must now make a full public apology, resign your office immediately and return all of your salary to consolidated revenue.’
There are less trivial examples. A recently elected prime minister’s assurance that ‘there will be no new taxes in my first year of government’ may need to be revisited if revenues from other sources unexpectedly dry up. A genuine and significant change in circumstance may demand a different response for the well-being of the country. We should applaud rather than upbraid leaders who respond skilfully to changed circumstances. That said, politicians should be wary of making blanket promises.
To change one’s mind on occasion, after thoughtful consideration of evidence old and new, is a mark of courage and intellect. Let’s not discourage it.
Graham Ring is a Darwin based writer and journalist.
