Great People who have made mistakes or changed.

Hello all,

 In the many candidate diaries here I see constant references to pandering and flip-flopping. I see many references to certain candidates being considered deceitful or even flat out lying in their rhetoric to get votes. Now I will admit that many times politicians have lied and pandered to get votes, no doubt about it.

However, when we evaluate a candidate's or a person's truthfulness we must look at their actions as well as their words. Are they personally advocating, helping and/or organizing to achieve these goals outside of their political activities? What are their motivations for their perceived change? Have they truly "changed" or simply become more focused?

I notice that people are quick to use the term panderer or flip flopper these days but I wonder if they would say the same thing about any of the following people.

Albert Einstein: Advocated building the Atomic Bomb to fight the Nazis, later...

when the war is over, then there will be in all countries a pursuit of secret war preparations with technological means which will lead inevitably to preventative wars and to destruction even more terrible than the present destruction of life." (Clark, pg. 698).

The atomic bombings of Japan occurred three months after the surrender of Germany, whose potential for creating a Nazi a-bomb had led Einstein to push for the development of an a-bomb for the Allies. Einstein withheld public comment on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." ("Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb", New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1). Einstein later wrote, "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." (Otto Nathan & Heinz Norden, editors, "Einstein on Peace", pg. 589).

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them." (Clark, pg. 752).

Does this make Einstein a flip-flopper? Does this make him a worse man?

Bill Gates: Hardly known for charity while he was creating his company he know is known as a leading philathronpist.

Angelina Jolie: Spent most of her early life quite self centered by her own admittance, is now a leading force in addressing orphaned refugee issues and awareness, has donated money to several charities and has adopted several orphans.

RFK on Vietnam:

Kennedy was also absorbed during his Senate years by a quest to end the war in Vietnam. As a new Senator, Kennedy had originally supported the Johnson Administration's policies in Vietnam, but called for a greater commitment to a negotiated settlement and a renewed emphasis on economic and political advancement within South Vietnam. As the war continued to widen and America's involvement deepened, Senator Kennedy came to have serious misgivings about President Johnson's conduct of the war. Kennedy publicly broke with the Johnson Administration for the first time in February 1966, proposing participation by all sides (including the Vietcong's political arm, the National Liberation Front) in the political life of South Vietnam. The following year, he took responsibility for his role in the Kennedy Administration's policy in the Southeast Asia, and urged President Johnson to cease the bombing of North Vietnam and reduce, rather than enlarge, the war effort.  

Was he a panderer? Would he have been a bad President if elected and not assassinated?

Siddhartha Buddha went from prince to monk. Is there something false in that conversion? Many influential religious saints and figures have undergone a transformation in their lives and have completely changed how they interact in the world and what they deem as important.

When people undergo traumatic experiences in their life, or are confronted with a reality that is so different and "real" from what they previously have known they are often affected on a deep emotional level. They often come away from that experience more focused on their true ideals or a completely changed person. To me the evidence of this change is in their actions.

When you see a person starting funds, consistently standing up for what they believe in, fighting with and for others for a cause, studying to understand and further fight for that cause; you know they are not pandering, they are not lying and are not false. They are truly sincere in their beliefs. To me a panderer is a person who speaks the words but does nothing to back up those words. When someone acts and acts strongly to achieve or fight for the ideals they believe in, then you know they are sincere.

I just wanted to remind people that no one is pure, no one is mistake free and the difference between a respectable, honorable and truthful person is the person that admits they were wrong and changes their to course to pursue the correct action. That is how you tell a panderer from a person who is sincere. Who backs up what they say with action?

•  Tips?

  by Chaoslillith on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 03:48:05 AM PDT

  •  Well done, tipped

    and recommended - thank you.

    by pkbarbiedoll on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:59:52 AM PDT

•  Well put, I hope this diary survives

  the fan club onslaught

  my 13-year old kid asked me lastnight "Who are you going to vote for in the primary?"

  I said that I wasn't sure yet, that I liked several of the candidates but I needed to see more of how they interacted with regular people, issues that arise, and even how they handle the media.

  this factional crap has really made me feel lousy about dKos lately.

  by KOTCrum on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:23:51 AM PDT

  •  I like the different areas you plan to use to

    evaluate the candidates. Though many of us advocate for one candidate or another, the decision of who to support is a personal one and should be based on the candidates, not on-line anonymous folks (as much as we all forget that at times ).

    If your kid is interested, I hope you'll share who you ultimately pick and why. At 13, what a great age to start learning about the best parts of politics - being able to select a candidate based on what you like.

    by edgery on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:46:59 PM PDT

•  The Fundamental Criticism

  Is that everyone who voted for the war, voted for Bush's war.

  by Edgar08 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:32:35 AM PDT

  •  But I Will Add

    It's about as smart as saying that Feingold voting to confirm Roberts means he voted for every Ruling Roberts will make.

    by Edgar08 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:04:09 AM PDT

  •  No. That's HRC's half of a criticism.

    The fundamental criticism is not HRC's which is the war was a good idea that would have worked out if fought differently.  

    The fundamental criticism is that it was a "dumb war" ab initio and should never have been fought.

    But HRC fans like to gloss over this point, because she wants the neocons to know that she's not a skeptic of wars, she'll just fight them better.  I don't much care for that. She's wrong, Obama and Edwards and Kucinich are right.

    by Inland on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:57:57 AM PDT

•  Thanks for posting, but...

  I'm going to assume you're referring to John Edwards, even though your post could apply to any number of candidates.  Even so...

  Let me start by saying none of these candidates are an Albert Einstein, a man who had enormous historic achievements before he made a 'mistake' in advocating the use of the bomb in a world war.  I wouldn't even bother putting any of our candidates on the same plane as a point of historical comparison.

  Also, the reference to RFK is troublesome, because RFK died before he had a chance to be president and, lionization aside, we aren't able to discern today what kind of president he actually would have been.

  Overall, I don't think it makes sense to rationalize the errors in judgment the candidates have made or compare them to great historical figures when they haven't earned said comparisons.  I think you look at each candidate's record, and weigh their judgments against what they knew (or should have known) at the time, examine the costs of said mistake and then decide whether you believe they have the judgment today to lead the country.  All this side talk is just that.

  by GeckoBlue on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:44:20 AM PDT

•  More....

  Let's see... from The Experts Speak

  "I therefore advance it, as a suspicion only, that the Negro is inferior in both mind and body" - Thomas Jefferson

  "I think there is a worldwide market for maybe five computers" - Thomas Watson, head of IBM

  "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" - H.M. Warner, head of Warner Bros.

  "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society

  "Everything that can be invented, has been" - Charles Duell, head of the US Patent Office

  Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the Government of a God great enough to make and rule the universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to quip, so low a piece of demagogism as this.
  -- Abraham Lincoln, 1859

  I'm sorry, Mr. Kipling, but you just don't know how to use the English language.
  -- Editor of the San Francisco Examiner, to Rudyard Kipling, 1889

  You ain't goin' nowhere, son. You ought to go back to drivin' a truck.
  -- Jim Denny, Manager of "Grand Ole Opry", to Elvis Presley, 1954

  A shilly-shally thing of milk and water, which could not last.
  -- Alexander Hamilton, on the Constitution, 1787

  I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.
  -- Mohandas K. Gandhi, 1940

  I can accept the theory of relativity as little as I can accept the existence of atoms and other such dogmas.
  -- Ernst Mach, 1913

  by plf515 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:47:32 AM PDT

  •  Uncomfortable quotes

    Goes to show how easy it is to dredge up things from the past and use them to unfairly criticize today.  

    If someone continues down the same path, or clearly and without question triangulates sides for political advantage, then I believe digging up old quotes to use against them is fine.  

    by pkbarbiedoll on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:03:39 AM PDT

  •  Sadly, plf,

    it looks as though Hamilton's getting the last laugh on that Constitution thingy.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:25:20 AM PDT

    •  Oh I don't know

      even if the whole thing disappeared tomorrow, it lasted a long time.

      But I don't think that's happening.  

      by plf515 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:31:46 AM PDT

•  Great men who never made a mistake

  n/t

  by plf515 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 04:48:07 AM PDT

  •  wait...

    You forgot the list - Oh wait - it's too early for me

    by mnguitar on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:52:49 AM PDT

•  Another great example is Malcolm X.

  The first half of his autobiography shows him to be very anti-white, but after he visited Mecca he realized that not all whites are bad and class is critical.  His willingness to publicly show how wrong he had been, admit his error and continue to battle for what he believed is impressive.

  by jct on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:06:12 AM PDT

  •  Whoa Whoa Whoa...

    Malcolm X was NEVER anti-white. He was anti-WHITE OPPRESSION. The difference you see in his change had to do with his discovering a multi-racial society living in peace without WHITE OPPRESSION. He thought that maybe this could be possible in America, if the economic playing field could be leveled. But even then, he was not optimistic about it and rightly so.

    In either case, he was never anti-white people the way white people were anti-black people. He just didnt think black and white people could live together in peace, and therefore should remain seperate.

    by brooklynbadboy on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:11:12 AM PDT

    •  I disagree.

      From The Autobiography of Malcom X, talking about how his trip to Mecca changed his beliefs:

      In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people.  I never will be quilty of that again-as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man.  The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites make blanket indictments against blacks.

      I tried in every speech I made to clarigy my new position regarding white people-'I don't speak against the sincere, well'meaning, good white people.  I have learned that there are some.  I have learned that not all white people are racists....'

      by jct on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:30:43 AM PDT

      •  When did ever say anything

        even in your quote that was anti-white? He never advocated the subjugation of white people. He was never in favor of laws to curb the civil rights of white people. He never advocated the enslavement of white people. He spoke what was, in fact, a fact: white people in this country have always saw to it that black people remain under the boot. He believed that this would always be the case, because he believed that white people were inherently evil to the core based on their long history of oppression of just about everyone in the world. It was for this reason he advocated separation.

        What did change is the idea that ALL white people were inherently evil to the core. This made him believe that a multi-racial society was indeed possible, although not likely. He conceded there were exceptions to the rule, but the rule itself was never in question. His change consisted of accepting the idea of integration, a point on which he and King disagreed. But nothing in he ever said was "anti-white." He said it himself all the time-

        I'm not anti white. I'm pro black.

        by brooklynbadboy on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:43:53 AM PDT

        •  That Autobiography quote

          In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people.

          I guess that is Malcolm admitting to some degree of being "anti"

          no?

          by KOTCrum on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:57:19 AM PDT

          •  No.

            Thats him admitting there are exceptions to the rule. He is not saying

            You know, I was wrong about white people. They are actually good and fun folks. These past 400 years have all just been a big misunderstanting.

            What he is saying is

            We all know their history. That is clear. However, there may be some of them willing to put this aside and be fair. If this is the case, I'll be open to that whereas in the past I was not.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:22:16 PM PDT

        •  I was calling the belief that

          "white people were inherently evil to the core" as you say, anti-white.  I agree that he never advocated subjugating white people.  In retrospect, I would have chosen a different term.  But, my point remains: he changed from viewing all white people as "evil" (I'll use your term to avoid further argument) to seeing that there was individual interest.  My point was, and is, that he was admirable for the way even after very publicly and strongly advocating one position, turned around and very publicly and strongly admitted his error and advocated his new position just as strongly.  This was not an attack on Malcolm X, it was praise of him.

          But, I'm just curious if someone said all black people were "evil" would you see this comment as anti-black?

          by jct on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:00:29 AM PDT

          •  If they backed it up with actions-

            absolutely. Otherwise its just a broad generalization. Something one could chalk up to hyperbole or simple prejudice. That was the case with Malcolm X prior to his travels.

            However, should they then follow up this sentiment with 400 years of out-and-out oppression (actually happened), then I'd think the statement should be categorized as CLEARLY anti-black.

            It's the old Cornel West formula: racism = prejudice + POWER. Without the power and will to act on prejudice, its just an ill conceived opinion. We all have a degree of prejudice to some extent. Once you can and do cause harm to others based on that prejudice, its much different sort of animal.

            by brooklynbadboy on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:09:36 PM PDT

•  David Brock

  went from being a smear artist for The American Spectator to founding Media Matters for America, a resource I, at least, find invaluable. I believe Brock's change of heart is sincere and enduring, and I now believe him to be an honorable man.

  by ticket punch on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 05:34:50 AM PDT

•  any votes for George Wallace? n/t

  by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:08:05 AM PDT

  •  I was hesitant to bring it up,

    but it's valid.

    Sadly, the Wallace example shows a different example of Road to Damascus Moment:  too late to undo the damage caused.

    See also:  Alan Greenspan, congressional Dems on AUMF, Robert McNamara, etc.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:29:31 AM PDT

    •  yes, I had read about him a bit

      and the awful things he did.  Then, art imitating life, I saw that wonderful film about him with Gary Sinese <sp>.  A very poignant ending when he entered the church and asked for forgiveness in the wheelchair.

      So, with this question, it was that image that popped into my mind.

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:20:15 AM PDT

•  Logic: All great people have made mistakes, thus

  my candidate, who has made mistakes, must be great.

  Or something like that.

  There may be a logical fallacy in there somewhere.

  by science first on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:11:19 AM PDT

  •  No, the logic is, Some great people have made

    mistakes despite their greatness. Therefore, my candidate, who has made mistakes, is not thereby excluded from greatness. Whether they should be included as great depends as the author said on their subsequent deeds.

    by Wee Mama on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:03:01 AM PDT

    •  this fits

      Wee Mama has made an interpretation of the diary that actually reflects what the diarist said. Use of logic , all that kinda helped her. I assume "her".

      by Abra Crabcakeya on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:05:20 AM PDT

      •  Thanks. I try to read what is before me, a

        challenging task since in this as in so much, "believing is seeing."

        by Wee Mama on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:02:30 AM PDT

    •  Sure. And the presidency isn't an audition.

      First you prove it with deeds, then you get to be president.  Campaigns don't really count.

      by Inland on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:01:31 AM PDT

  •  doesn't fit

    I don't think this diarist was making a statement anything like your interpretation.

    by Abra Crabcakeya on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:03:28 AM PDT

  •  It's Bush's line.

    He's certain he's going to be vindicated by history because Lincoln made mistakes and was popular, but was vindicated.

    When your record is lemons, pretend like everyone likes lemons sooner or later.

    by Inland on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:00:23 AM PDT

•  Washington & Jefferson never changed

  They privately SAID they were against slavery but didn't speak or do anything about it publicly. In fact, Jefferson wrote that ALL men are created equal, but that was just rhetoric for the thousand and thousands of African Americans in this country.

  At least Washington freed a few slaves in his lifetime and most thereafter in his will. Jefferson didn't even do that much. They were fine men, but by no means pure and perfect.  

  Give me someone who made mistakes and admitted them. And is still standing after getting enormous blowback for it.

  Give me someone who IS changing things for the better-- on picket lines, fighting for miniumum wage hikes, helping pay for other kids to go to college and building computer labs out of his own pocket.

  by redding888 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:21:17 AM PDT

  •  I see Jefferson as a conflicted man. He believed

    that slavery was wrong, but, he loved his life of luxury and privilege.  When push came to shove the latter was more important to him than the former.

    by jct on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:30:24 AM PDT

  •  or leading a Revolution?

    or creating a University?

    or composing (and shepherding) a law guaranteeing religious freedom to persons of all faiths?

    or serving as President, not because you want to, but because you feel obligated to?

    "by no means pure and perfect" -- i think that's the diarist's whole point, isn't it?

    by UntimelyRippd on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:21:06 AM PDT

  •  actually Jefferson did do something publically

    he wrote it into the original Bill of Rights.  But understand, without the unification of all 13 colonies, including the southern ones, there way to hold a union together.  So it was scratched.  Obviously, this issue was there from the beginning and never resolved until 1865.

    Or so the story goes at Monticello, his home overlooking my university.

    There is still the issue of his own slaves there, regardless of how well he may have treated them.

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:33:05 AM PDT

•  I agree!

  I wrote a comment that was similar in content yesterday, albeit with no details or particular.

  I would hope that one's life experiences would keep a person's mind open and growning.

  By definition, a liberal and/or progressive is open minded thus open to change. A conservative and/or fundamentalist, on the other hand, is stuck in one view that one cannot seem to take forward.

  Age changes us; life experiences change us.  Circumstances change us.  All kinds of things would contribute to learning and progressing forward as opposed to holding on to one set of beliefs.

  Sometimes when I hear the words of Bush and Rove and Cheney I am reminded of my friends and I when we were 10 years old in the 1950's, playing war. It was all so black and white then.  We were good; the enemy du jour was evil.  How can people my age remains STUCK at the mentality of a ten year old?  Life. Learning. Change. It should happen. It doesn't always and some try to prevent change.
  The reason the plutocrats never wanted the slaves to learn to read is because the more information they acquire on their own, the more people choose to learn and think, the less likely they are to buy into another's narrative.

  If a leader/politician cannot allow themselves to listen to the view of others, to learn from others, to be open to sincere change, they are......what we have now.  RIGID, CLOSED MINDED people who have the same narrative at 60 that they had at 10.

  by Jjc2006 on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 06:37:27 AM PDT

•  Or as a wise friend put it,

  Not by their roots and not by their toots,
  But by their fruits ye shall know them.

  by Wee Mama on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:04:23 AM PDT

•  To the list I'd add

  St Theresa of Avila, a superficial partygirl who later founded an order and is known for deep contemplative prayer; St. Ignatious, a macho soldier who founded the Jesuits and gave us the Spiritual Exercises; Archbishop Oscar Romero, who went from a patsy of the ruling class to an ardent supporter of the poor; and even the early Christians who went from an exclusive sect to welcoming all nationalities.

  I'm always moved by conversion experiences, whether they be spiritual or political.  Hell, you forgot to include Markos himself who went from a Republican to a partisan Democrat.  Did he flip-flop and pander or did he grow up?  People who remain certain and are unaffected by the people around them are frightening people.  Count me among those who are drawn to people who challenge themselves to grow intellectually, emotionally, politically and spiritually.

  What matters to me is not that people never change  positions but that the changes are based on changes within themselves and not based on the polls.  Give me someone real over someone who has been untouched by the world around them.

  by sobermom on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:27:11 AM PDT

  •  You might want to reconsider the 'poll thing'...

    after all, representative democracy depends on knowing the public's attitudes, does it not?  How else could we argue that the American people do not want to continue Bush's war in Iraq and the congress should listen up and act accordingly?

    Elected officials (and those who want to be) who do not listen to polls do not listen to people.

    by oldpro on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 07:39:54 AM PDT

    •  Good point

      but I think it also depends.  We've suffered through Mitt Romney here who has had every opinion under the sun based on whatever niche he's trying to fit into at the time.  If polls make the person wonder why people see things differently from them, and they really explore the issue, and work on educating both themself and the voters, then I have no problem with pols paying attention to polls.  But if it's an I'm afraid I won't get reelected or I'm afraid I'll be attacked, well then I just have no respect for that.  And Romney is definitely the latter.

      by sobermom on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:28:25 AM PDT

      •  Yes, indeed. There is a difference between

        slavish followership and leadership...and one must know when to bolt the crowd, take an unpopular position and provide leadership.

        Not as easy as it sounds, though.

        by oldpro on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:45:39 AM PDT

•  I'd add Earl Warren

  As attorney general and then governor of California during WW II, he supported the internment of Japanese-Americans.  As Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court he presided over a court that decided landmark civil rights cases, starting with Brown v. Board of Ed.  Without his leadership, those cases may have been decided differently and the opinions would definitely not have been so decisive.  When the Supreme Court rules unanimously, it's very hard for opponents of the decision to muster much support.

  by sarahnity on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:41:35 AM PDT

•  Can't risk country on illogical stuff like this.

  It's Bush's line, too, about how great leaders were doubted and have setbacks, therefore, he must be like Lincoln.  Indeed, his ovecoming of alchohol dependency made him better than people who had never struggled.

  But it doesn't follow; most people who make craven, stupid mistakes stay craven and stupid, or improve marginally to average.

  It's still up to the individual, let's just call our example John, to prove that he's got the stuff and isn't just flippety flopping.  That's especially true if he continued in his error after a period that he should have been reflecting and admitting his errors, for a hypothetical example, running for national office.  And of course, if they are running away from a whole bunch of mistakes documented on You Tube, then

  Why risk it?

  by Inland on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 08:54:31 AM PDT

  •  OK HUUUUGGGGEEE

    problem with your statement.

    Has Bush ONCE apologized, admitted he was wrong or changed course from the current...ummm no!

    My diary is pointing out that many people great and otherwise made mistakes, realized them, learned from them and became greater people. Bush has never changed, will never learn and will never become great.

    Nice try to twist the diary though.

    by Chaoslillith on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

•  That Explains Why I've Not Acheived Greatness

  Never made a mistake...

  by The Baculum King on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 09:11:37 AM PDT