9-11-89 . . . Jim Wright, who represented the Fort Worth area in the United States House of Representatives for thirty-four years, resigned several weeks ago amidst allegations of wrongdoing. Tomorrow there is a special election to replace him. Although I’m not familiar with the candidates, Democrat Pete Geren and Republican Bob Lanier, I pay attention to the advertisements that I see on television and in the newspaper. Tonight I saw a televised Lanier ad in which Geren is criticized for changing his mind about certain issues. It ended with this statement: “Pete Geren doesn’t know what he believes.” What disturbs me about this kind of ad is that it suggests that changing one’s mind about something is bad per se—that is, bad in and of itself. That, of course, is ridiculous. If new reasons or evidence come to one’s attention, it would be irrational and imprudent not to consider it. In fact, I would hold it against someone that his or her beliefs are immune to evidence. Unfortunately, there seems to be an assumption about that changing one’s mind is a sign of softheadedness or weakness of will, when in fact it’s a sign of intellectual strength and integrity. The person who keeps an open mind about the issues is trying to attain coherence in his or her belief set. Also, such people treat others with respect by giving them the chance to make a case for or against some action or policy.
I think I know what Lanier was driving at, though. He is implying that Geren changed his mind because it is politically expedient to do so, not because Geren discovered new evidence against his previous beliefs. The charge is one of dependence. Lanier’s argument to the voters goes as follows: (1) You ought not to elect someone who is dependent on special interests; (2) Geren is dependent on special interests (as evidenced by his change of mind); therefore, (3) you ought not to elect Geren. My claim is that (2) is false, or at least that it is not supported by the fact that Geren changed his mind. Perhaps Geren changed his mind because he discovered new evidence; then Lanier’s argument fails. Another confusion is between being principled and not changing one’s mind. Principled people can and do change their minds, either by abandoning their principles in the face of evidence or reasons or by revising their principles. Conversely, unprincipled people can go through life never changing their minds. To be principled is to be willing to sacrifice certain goods (for example, economic efficiency) in order to produce or attain others (for example, distributive justice). There is no reason why a person who is principled in this sense cannot change his or her mind. I’m a good example. I was once a principled libertarian, but now I’m a principled socialist. I changed my mind. Why? Because I saw inconsistencies in libertarianism. Am I softheaded or weak-willed? I’ll leave that for the reader to decide.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 