Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Gabrielle Giffords – these are just a few big names in the Democratic Party that used to be Republicans. Switching parties in the U.S. is rather common, and it happens on both sides of the aisle because of both systematic changes in a party’s platform and because of evolving personal values. Most of the political figures referenced in the previous paragraph fall into the latter category.
Despite the relative normality of changing parties, there is a tendency to hold people’s political pasts over their heads. Especially on the left, we like to demonize “reformed Republicans” for their past alignments. It is time to reconsider that practice.
Early on, many factors shape one’s political identifications: one’s family, gender, race, class, region, sexuality and religion are the main ones. With age, however, these guiding principles can be altered as we experience and learn more about our surroundings. As such, it makes total sense that people’s political ideas change too.
So, we should not confuse political consistency with rigidity. Consistency refers to reliably working for the public good — which does not preclude a change in alignment. Rigidity, on the other hand, is when someone refuses to change even in the face of conflicting information and experiences. Therefore, someone can still be an effective politician or person even when they have changed parties. When not done for opportunistic, manipulative or dishonest purposes, changing parties can actually be a sign of maturity, perceptiveness and accountability.
Unfortunately, however, it is not hard to find examples of how we degrade those who make changes. Take the example of Elizabeth Warren, who switched parties in 1996. Some Democrats insult Warren for being relatively new to the left. The news media uses negatively charged words to talk about Warren engaging her political past. It should be noted that Elizabeth Warren is not this author’s preferred candidate. All the same, while there are numerous factors one should consider in deciding whether to support Warren, the longevity of her being a Democrat should not be one of them.
What is more important in the evaluation of her and any other politician is their commitment to their beliefs, the ethical standards to which they hold themselves and their qualifications for their position. Unless they include malfeasance or incompetence, histories of political identification need not be considered.
The notion of “finding yourself” is a societal cliché because that is essentially what life is all about. In that spirit, we should not hold grudges against people who make changes along the way. Adapting and evolving based on the information that we consume is a defining element of the human experience, and we must normalize that politically.
Sam Smith is a junior studying geography at Ohio University. Please note that the views and opinions of the columnists do not reflect those of The Post. Want to talk more about it? Let Sam know by tweeting him @sambobsmith_.
