In defense of flip-flopping

From what I hear regarding the Presidential campaign, about the worst thing a candidate can be accused of is flip-flopping.

I do not understand why flip-flopping is a bad thing. There are many reasons to change an opinion of an issue. New information, new insights, being exposed to a new argument are all good reasons to change a position.

Indeed, someone who had never changed his or her position on any issue of substance is most likely brain deal. I am not going to turn this blog into a Bush Bash Blog, there's hardly any need for that and anyway in a few months, he'll be irrelevant. But his failures can be traced to his inability to evolved his positions. Rather than re-evaluate policy, Bush tended to get rid of people who challenged his beliefs.

I know there's a belief out there that equates flip-flopping with lack of principles. But our highest commitment should not be to our principles, merely because they are ours. Our highest commitment should be to the truth. Perhaps that is the problem. Given the way in which relativism has captured our way of thinking, perhaps people do not understand that a commitment to truth demands adjusting beliefs, and from time to time, abandoning them in light of new evidence. If there is no truth, I guess there is no reason to ever change a belief.

The other issue is the possibility that someone changes a position on an issue because it is politically expedient to do so. Again, I fail to see the problem here. We live in a democracy, and politicians ought to respond to political pressure. The system is often at its best when that happens.