Why do we get so hung up about consistency?

The US presidential campaign has thrown our obsession with consistency into sharp relief. Over and over again, the words ‘flip-flopping’ are brought into play as a form of attack. Past speeches and writings are combed for supposed — or even real — inconsistencies with what is being said today. Once found, these changes of opinion are waved over the candidate’s head like weapons. “Look, he once said this and now he’s saying this. He’s flip-flopping!”

If you stop to consider this, free from the synthetic excitement the media try to whip up, the only thing worth wondering about is the extent to which people’s opinions fail to change — even over long periods.

Times change. Contexts change. We learn new things, find new possibilities, ought to forget old grudges and hurts. Why shouldn’t our opinions change in line with the new realities?

The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.
~William Blake

Continued

Do you suffer from letting other people walk all over you, rather than expressing your own opinions, just because it might upset someone? That’s the question asked by Bonnie Staring in an article for healthszone.ca, part of The Toronto Star’s blog network (“The 7 deadly doormat sins”).

What makes you into a doormat? Here’s what she writes:

The Seven Deadly Doormat Sins (SDDS) are anxiety, denial, doubt, mediocrity, resentment, self-helplessness and silence. Whether performed on their own or in a heinous combination, SDDS can stop us from reaching our full potential, awakening the powerful person within, or simply getting to the office on time.

She also offers tips on how to identify SDDS behavior and learn not to do it again. Continued

In the United States, few topics are argued with such passion on both sides as abortion. That’s why it’s interesting to come across a different approach to the topic: one that’s based on humanism, not religion, and reason rather than emotion.

In the blog “Stumbling and Mumbling,” Chris Dillow describes the doubts that assail anyone who regards human beings as valuable, from whatever standpoint they reach that decision (“My Abortion Doubts”). Here’s the conclusion reached:

Now, I don’t want to reach a strong conclusion here. Instinctively, I’d much rather side with abortion rights’ campaigners than with religious maniacs and evidence-manipulators. It’s just that I can’t trust my instincts.

Take a look at the comments, too. There is some good sense and careful thinking there as well. Two other sites are also referenced for more on this discussion: an article in The Times (London) titled “Embryos have souls? What nonsense” and “Abortion: Rational Discussion/Debate” on the blog “Swords Crossed.”

As one of those who commented on “Stumbling and Mumbling” wrote:

We SHOULD look at abortion from many angles. We SHOULD question whether it’s right or wrong. Even those of us who know we’re better off with it legal should examine the reasoning behind it.

Hear! Hear!

Technorati Tags: abortion debate, right to choose, humanism, skepticism, rational debate

Here’s an interesting thought: is contemporary politics more likely to be swayed by comedians than arguments? Does a vibrant democracy need showbiz pizazz more than sober thought and detailed arguments?

That’s the idea espoused by Ian Buruma in “Send in the clowns” in “Comment is free. . .” from the British newspaper, The Guardian.

Beginning with Beppo Grillo, one of Italy’s most famous comics and most influential political commentators, and Victor Trujillo, better known as Brozo the Clown in Mexico, whose TV program is a prime source of political information, Buruma turns to the US presidential election:

While staid TV pundits ask the usual vapid questions during presidential debates in the United States, candidates know that the really important thing is to get laughs on the comedy shows of David Letterman or Jay Leno. And, for several years, American liberals have looked to Jon Stewart, another comic talent, for critical political commentary.

The point to all this, Buruma claims is that:

In fact, democracy demands a degree of showmanship and pizazz; politicians need to appeal to the mass of voters, and not just to an elite, which can afford to ignore hoi polloi. To be utterly boring, holding forth for hours on end, regardless of entertainment value, is the privilege of autocrats. Only communist rulers could force millions of people to buy their complete works, filled with wooden ideas written in turgid prose.

So, should our politicians brush up their comedy skills? Should President Bush end news conferences with a song-and-dance routine? Should Gordon Brown renounce Prime Minister’s Question Time in favor of fifteen minutes of jokes and pratfalls (and would anyone notice the difference)?

What do you think?

Technorati Tags: politics, democracy, showmanship in politics, popularist politicians, talk shows, getting publicity