Now that Mitt Romney has become the favorite target of Presidential hopefuls, the issue of consistency of belief and policy has come to the fore. While I’m not defender of the erstwhile Governor of Massachusetts, I’m glad I am not called to the same standards of consistency he has been on issues such as the mandate of medical insurance and a woman’s right to choose.  Although I can be skeptical of his reasons for shifting his position, I still feel public office holders should have the right to change their minds.

Changing seats changes perspectives, as anyone can testify from experience. President Reagan ascended to power by decrying big government and then presided over the largest expansion of government in several decades. President George H.W. Bush made the famous “Read my lips!” promise, then managed to “enhance revenue” like a good Democrat in his four years. When I taught high school I was convinced that ability grouping was the only way to manage academic achievement. I also used it to circumscribe the kind of students I taught. As a teacher educator, I now understand that heterogeneous grouping to a large extent allows students to benefit from the same kinds of curriculum and teaching. I also remember that the homogeneous groups I thought I was teaching in high school were not so homogeneous. So new perspectives allow us to think differently.

Somehow the expression “reflective politician” has become an oxymoron. Politicians are very like to consider it spineless to change their minds, and the result is the partisan bickering that has brought a halt to legislative progress in Congress.  The word “compromise,” which does not even imply changing your position, has become anathema to the partisans on the right and left.

This is not to say politicians do not calculate. They consider every option, but they choose the one that makes them look tough and resolute.  I can’t help but believe that John Boehner was prepared to compromise with the President when they first met about curbing the deficit in July, but the resolute politician in him won out over the conciliatory one.  That was a turning point when political sparring took over and collaboration ended. President Obama himself gave up on negotiating with an intractable opponent.

I find it completely credible that Governor Romney had ” a change of heart” on abortion before his first Presidential campaign. I have no insight into his motives, but it is clear that the Mormon part of his psyche was bound to be “pro-life.” The political expedience of his change makes it suspicious, but the moral right to change one’s position should be undisputed.  No one thinks it peculiar that Governor Rick Perry was once a Democrat, but now vies to be the most conservative of the Republicans.

President Obama has proved himself the most reflective of politicians to the jeopardy of his status in his own party.  He came into office with the full credentials of a card-carrying liberal, then proceeded to govern from the center. One could say this was merely the pragmatic requirement for getting things done, and Obama is a pragmatist.  But the President has taken the warnings about the deficit seriously and considered cutting back sacred social programs to bring his budget under control. You can claim this was political expedience, but I prefer to credit the President with a listening ear and a reflective mind.

In fact most of our Presidents have had this gift to listen and reflect, because it was necessary for leadership. It is mysterious that during the Presidential campaign, the ability to reflect and gain new insights has been ridiculed, and  stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise has been praised.  It makes the entire campaign into a performance of a role which will have no significance once the winner is in office.

Vacillation is not what we expect from our leaders, but the ability to reconsider a position and change your course, based on the highest values, should be an important qualification of leadership.