It is a peculiar part of our politics when politicians are routinely slammed for changing their minds. It is even more peculiar when it is the exact people who have been arguing for a change do all the criticising. But that is what we’ve seen from many after Kevin Rudd publicly came out in support for same-sex marriage on Tuesday night. For example, George Brandis claimed that Rudd’s announcement was politically motivated:
“What it tells you is that Kevin Rudd has not given up; Kevin Rudd is at it again.”
Others have hit Rudd for not making the announcement earlier, saying that he should have done it when he was PM. For example, Kieran Salsone started his op ed on the issue this week with:
CHEERS, Kev. I’m glad you’ve finally figured out that denying queers like me access to marriage isn’t particularly ethical.
These sorts of arguments are common. We hear about Julia Gillard’s ‘lie’ on carbon pricing, and Wayne Swan’s ‘backflip’ on the surplus. And, just like Rudd, Barack Obama was slammed by many for not supporting same-sex marriage earlier in his Presidency. Apparently, changing our minds, and our policies, when new information arises, or simply because we change our perspective on an issue is no longer acceptable.
Let’s get over the basics here. It is obviously ridiculous to assume that circumstances and minds can’t change and that our politicians can’t change with them. If it were the case then we would live in a completely static political world.
Despite this, I can see where it comes from. In a world in which politicians are forced to take their policies to an election every three years, the ‘they lied’ argument can be a very effective political tool. In cases like same-sex marriage I can also see why people get frustrated with the time it takes for people to change their views – I have experienced that myself.
However, I think we need to question our desire to jump on pollies when they change their mind. Whilst we may think that keeping pollies to their promises is important to democracy, the Kevin Rudd experience shows how it has taken has become quite destructive.
If we look at modern Australian politics I reckon there is one word to describe it; cynicism. We are all cynical – we expect the worst from our politicians. And we have some reason to be cynical – politics in many ways has become all about spin and a lot of substance has been lost. But at the same time, I think the public need to acknowledge their role in this process – we get to decide our politicians, and so it is therefore up to us to change our politicians if we want to.
I think this demand that people can’t change their minds is deeply part of cynicism. Instead of providing some decent analysis around how and why politicians may change their mind about a subject, we have become wholly cynical about their motives – that it is all political, and that they change their minds to suit political needs. The problem with this is that it creates an awful feedback loop – we become cynical about politicians motives, so politicians become more political about their motives, and hence we become more cynical etc etc.
Where this has become interesting though is when social movements play into this cynicism and I think the same-sex marriage movement is a good example of this. As a movement that fights for people to change their mind on an issue, it is often very cynical when people actually do change their mind. When I think of social movements, I think maybe there are two ways to create change – to defeat your opponents, or to convert them. Both are important. Yet, with this cynical approach to politics, we seem to have lost our drive to convert – if you have held a bad view once it is held against you forever and no amount of repentance is allowed to bring it back. The problem is that it inhibits change. If politicians know they are going to get slammed when they come out in opposition to a position they have previously held, even by the supporters of that position, why would they do it? The risks become too large, and without any cover to support change, it seems easier to stay in the closet.
I guess what this all comes down to in the end is an appaling lack of trust we have found ourselves placing in our politicians. As Stephanie Peatling said about Rudd:
“It is a failing of the political discourse in Australia that politicians are often not given the benefit of the doubt when their thinking on a particular issue changes.”
I couldn’t agree with Peatling more. We need to start taking responsibility for our lack of trust in politicians just as much as the politicians do. If we think people are backflipping for political reasons, that’s fine – let’s vote them out. But at the same time I think we need to break down some of the cynicism. Not everything every pollie does is for political reasons – people get into the game for genuinely good reasons. So maybe we can start treating it a bit like that as well, and we can engage in a proper debate about how policies can and should evolve.