Why Is Flip-Flopping Always So Bad?

A leader should be a leader and not a follower. Certainly someone who intends to be a "leader" but merely follows the prevailing winds in order to gain the popularity to get elected isn't much of a leader. A leader should be a trend setter not a trend follower. Anyone can follow and parrot a trend. A leader who has well reasoned positions should not have reason to change those positions. And of course there is the matter of principle.

But isn't it also wise to change a position when circumstances change or new evidence becomes available? It seems to me that ignoring a change in circumstance or evidence is just as irresponsible, if not more so, than changing your position to follow shifting political winds. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the original position was correct for the circumstances and evidence prevailing at the time the position was adopted. Now suppose the circumstances change such that the original basis for that position no longer applies or that new evidence becomes available that contradicts the original premise. Now that the original position has been rendered irrelevant, wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to not change your position? That's not being "principled", that's being ignorant. Yet apparently, given the propensity for leveling charges of flip-flopping at the slightest indication of a change in position, we are supposed to believe that stubbornly continuing to hold a position in spite of evidence that it has been rendered irrelevant is the sign of a good leader. It seems to me that a leader who is unable or unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances is doomed to failure.

Recently, Barack Obama intimated that he would reevaluate his position on Iraq based on the preset conditions on the ground. That sounds like a responsible approach to me. Let's recognize that things have changed in Iraq from over a year when the original position was adopted and a new position may be warranted. You would think Republicans would have jumped all over that as an indication that even Obama recognizes that Democrats' push to withdraw regardless of the consequences and the damage incurred is not the best approach. You would think, but no, they jumped all over him accusing him of flip-flopping. But not to let Republicans be the only source of disappointment, Obama quickly backtracked and said he never suggested that he would do anything other than what he stated over a year ago regarding Iraq - we wouldn't want anyone to think that we might adapt our position to changing new circumstances in Iraq because that would just be flip-flopping. The ironic thing is that, being the optimist, if things continue in Iraq as they have been recently, the vast majority of our troops would likely be withdrawn within Obama's 16 month time frame anyway regardless of who is president. Given all that has happened in the past 16 months, another 16 months does not seem like an unreasonable time frame to be mostly withdrawn by simply continuing the current program.