I am sure we all wish our politicians demonstrated intellectual integrity, but how much does it matter? Mitt Romney appears to change his positions to suit the electorate (liberal - for a Republican - when running in Mass., now right wing to win the presidential primaries). If you agree with his current positions does it matter what his positions were 4 years ago? Do you vote for someone whose positions you do not agree with just because they have held those positions for a long time?
You use those two words to in a single phrase, but taken individually they are the two most important criteria I have when assessing the strength of presidential candidates. Given a choice between a principled and extremely intelligent candidate whose political agenda differs somewhat from mine and a dunce(think current POTUS) with questionable integrity whose political beliefs exactly mirror mine, I will choose the former every time. The world changes too rapidly to really know with any certainty what the major challenges for the country might be in any 8 year window (few forecast 9/11 and the resulting occupation of Iraq). Its critical to have someone in the White House that is able to think rationally through the issues and think about all the ramifications of the actions they take. For that comfort and serenity, I will gladly accept a POTUS that might have a different stance on tax law or abortion than I do. The alternative is what we have now, which is something I hope I never have to live through again.
I guess it depends on whether the position change is mercenary or the inevitable evolution of a person's mind. If your initial perception of reality is carved into stone, you become rigid - hating all that is ambiguous and lumping what you don't understand into stereotypes consistent with your original impressions. Compartmentalizing reality becomes your weakness; consistency your *****. Freezing reality leads to rationalization of how your faulty initial perception remains valid. You lie to yourself and others in an attempt to remain consistent. I don't want a politician who hasn't changed his views of the world since he was a stinky 21 year old hippie, smoking pot and dropping acid, thinking he understands the world. I don't want a politician who joined the Young Republicans when he was 22 and has yet to examine his world view and who instead relies on cue cards from the Heritage Foundation for his political stances. I want a politician who has evolved - made mistakes along the way and learning from the mistakes, as we all do - and who acknowledges his mistakes. I thought Noam Chomsky was brilliant when I read him at 19. I understand now he is the clown - entertaining those who pay for his estates. William F. Buckley saw right through him and I mocked Buckley for his smirk. I was wrong. Now Buckley may have been a clown as well, but he told the truth about Chomsky and I didn't listen; my thinking was too rigid. I don't know who Romney is. I don't fault him for evolving views on abortion. It is a tough issue, which is why it remains divisive. If I give him the benefit of the doubt, he has explored the ethical issues surrounding protection of life unborn and now errs on the side of protecting nascent life. I would hope his mind understands that shift towards protecting life and erring on the side of life applies in other circumstances where death is a finality that cannot be reversed. If the evolution of a position is consistent with the exploration of truth, I applaud a politician's flexibility. If the circumstances dictate the flip flop was political, the rat doesn't belong in office.
Mitt Romney appears to change his positions to suit the electorate .... Which puts him in with just about every other politician....
The candidates with the best marks are, in order: Paul, Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain and Edwards. The candidates with the worst marks are, in order: Romney and Clinton. Intellectual integrity can be a deal killer but not a deal maker.
