When it comes to politics, we expect our politicians to be people of unwavering principle men and women of fortitude and good character which is hilarious because these people are renowned universally for being deceitful lying bastards. Throw in the fact that you can’t actually represent the collective will of a mass, personal self-interest, and desire for power talk about stacking the deck. So, when politicians decide to shift positions, we hate that we see that as a sign of being unprincipled because we assume overwhelmingly correctly that their change in position is motivated by a malicious self-interest and again it very well might be but here is a kicker if we look at our societies, we live in that dreaded thing called democracy the will of the people. Politics is downstream from culture. Society at large is pushed and pulled by the extreme fringes on either end of the poles and their opinions shift and change via this pushing and pulling mechanism from the polar ends and so the saturated changes in moods and thoughts trickle-down permeating its way into the political realm down below. People's opinions and thoughts change then, and those people include the voting constituents of elected representatives.

You would think then that the very nature of representative democracy would necessitate that politicians also change with it but we never think their change is representative of a shift caused by society. We always assume it's a change motivated by self-interest which is odd because this sounds like a politician is unable to change positions based on the changing opinions of those
they represent. I’m not trying to defend the politicians’ actions here merely pointing out you are sort of putting them in an impossible situation where if they do change the perception is always one of self-interest as if the person who is supposed to represent your interest can't also still maintain that but also change with you. This makes it sound like politicians can't learn as if they can't behave in a manner that is natural to human nature you are implying, they can't behave like you due to their position of power. It implies this absurdly rigid idea that everything a politician runs on is the aspect of focus on and not the outcome which is completely insane as if the policy is guaranteed to produce the intended outcome with no chance of hiccups or other variables throwing a monkey wrench into it which as an analysis method is nothing short of intellectual suicide.

It seems then the only way to mitigate the visibility of the shift is to do so at a time when it is not seen as some cynical ploy to score cheap political points which if you think about it is not only quite unreasonable it's also antithetical to democracy itself. People will say oh person x was for y and then opinion shifted now they aren't for it anymore and this is always viewed negatively when in reality that's a feature of democracy. You're supposed to shift with the will of the people that's the whole point you change with the winds. When do we expect representatives to shift then? If they shift first, it looks like they're going against the will of the people, if they shift too late it looks like they're ignoring the will of the people, if they shift too quickly it looks like they're trying to take advantage of it so what other option do you have?

Well, the more I’m thinking about this the more I’m starting to see glaring holes I’ve never seen before that make me go my lord the hyper unrealistic burden of expectations within the confines of this framework seem like a nightmare. Or here's an example let's say a politician has a bunch of things he wants to push but one thing really blows up in the media makes the rounds and he isn't in favor of it. It goes up against his principles. The media inflated thing isn't important but the media is hyping it and the other things he wants to pass collectively are objectively much better but it isn't as sexy but if he doesn't play ball he can't pass the other things. So now he has to decide either stick the personal conviction piss off the party and he can't work on the other goods or make a more pragmatic choice and side with something he isn't personally in favor of to get a crack at pushing other objectively better policies. Well, you can't have both and it doesn't matter if you could shoot down the media hype and push the better but less sexy policy. What will stick is the media hype. If you do good no one remembers if you do bad no one forgets. Realistically speaking what do people expect to happen in that scenario, he stands on principle and steps down well the next person will have the same clash of conscience if he has a sense of morality. Okay, bad example he's a politician they don't have morals, but they will also face the same dilemma at some point and there is no guarantee the next person will be objectively better at all none.

Or here's another one say you want a certain outcome via a certain political message and procedure but once in office you learn you can get the desired outcome but not via the original method classic example tax cuts for the rich because you want the middle class to have more money. Try being a politician and explaining to people that consumers vastly outnumber the wealthy producers and if you give a tax break to consumers, they then spend their newfound higher income on that which is made for them by the wealthy producers. Well, they don't give a damn about the material betterment of the consumer class all the media will focus on is the wealth accumulated by the wealthy upper classes and so that circles around and around over and over again until those people stop being stupid and understand basic economics good luck with that. They will see if they bother to look that is that their guy voted against increased taxes on the wealthy, and he will get a blighted mark for it regardless of objectively better outcomes and should he crack the nod at taxing the rich and listen to the will of the people which will inevitably pump the brakes on the country's economic output and lead it to a grinding halt. He can't go and chastise his constituents for being stupid advocating for bad policy he's merely doing what they ask, and they aren't going to blame themselves or their fellow voters for also wanting bad policy.

It's easier to blame the representative and he will get voted out for that hopefully the next person they get is someone who understands economics and so what you're left with is pushing bad policy favored by an ignorant voting majority that you will likely be blamed for should you still be in office when you know society reaps what you have helped so or superseding them when you know better in which case they'll chalk you out for not doing their bidding. If only there was some apolitical way to objectively view policy (see list of books below). Anyway, again this looks to imply like the point to focus on is the policy idea rather than the policy outcome which I just realized is politics in a nutshell. That actually explains a lot far more than it should yikes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdRHxEiYQ-U

This makes it sound like politicians can't learn as if they can't behave in a manner that is natural to human nature you are implying, they can't behave like you due to their position of power. 

Anyway, again this looks to imply like the point to focus on is the policy idea rather than the policy outcome which I just realized is politics in a nutshell.

He can't go and chastise his constituents for being stupid advocating for bad policy he's merely doing what they ask, and they aren't going to blame themselves or their fellow voters for also wanting bad policy.

If only there was some apolitical way to objectively view policy (see list of books below).