|
DALL·E/The Epoch Times |
|
In Support of Those Who Changed Their Minds |
|
|
By Roger Simon |
|
I suppose my support of those who change their minds could be considered self-serving because I am one of them. On or about the turn of this century, I moved to the right from the left. For that reason, I am suspicious to some. I will occasionally—even now, nearly a quarter-century later—be confronted by old line conservatives who insist I’m still a liberal or a progressive and that my right-wing opinions are paper thin or fraudulent. This happens largely in anonymous comments sections and has been going on for so long now, I just shrug. I don’t even bother to counter with the obvious—some of their most important leaders had migrated politically as well. Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, the most conservative presidents in recent times in their policies, were originally Democrats. Reagan ran the actors union (SAG); Trump donated to the Clintons. Nevertheless, many take that suspicious attitude toward those who have changed and—I would argue even more self-destructively—those who are changing. If you want to win hearts and minds, if you want people to come over to your side, I suggest the opposite is the smart approach. Feed that changing bird with an open palm, don’t grab it by the feathers and shove worms down its throat. We are in the midst of a situation such as this in the Democrat presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which has become quite popular with a number of Republicans, although more from the rank-and-file than from party officials. He seemed to get more applause than Sean Hannity during an hour-long interview with the Fox News host on his show. I bring this up not because I think RFK Jr. will be a registered Republican any time soon; that’s more than highly unlikely. In fact, it may be more useful for him to remain a Democrat and help straighten out a party that has run off the rails. I do it as an illustration of how you treat people who agree with you in some areas and not in others, and how you might get them to agree with you on yet more and actually make change. Ron DeSantis, when queried about Mr. Kennedy as a running mate, understood this, much to the disapproval of Jeffrey Blehar at the National Review. “Last week, the flagging Ron DeSantis presidential campaign announced a ‘reboot,’ seeking to recover momentum in the primary race. This week, the reboot continued (as all good reboots do, over several news cycles), with the campaign shedding nearly 30 percent of its staff. And DeSantis, attempting to right the ship, went on "Outkick The Coverage" with Clay Travis to say he’d entertain the idea of appointing conspiracy-theorist and prominent anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination against Joe Biden) to either the CDC or the FDA. You know, so he could ‘do his thing.’” |
|
Was this forwarded to you? Sign-up for a all access digital subscription, or register for a free account. |
|
Unlike Mr. Blehar, considering the results of the pandemic here and abroad, I wouldn’t mind at all Mr. Kennedy "doing his thing” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. My guess is it would be an improvement. So, I avoided confrontation when interviewing Mr. Kennedy as I have just done for our Presidential Roller Coaster series. That's my general approach and will be into the future. I don’t think confronting candidates is all that meaningful—they all have canned answers for almost anything—better to let them reveal themselves, both their ideas and their personalities. I have another reason for this, and perhaps it’s a tad arrogant, but I feel I can better help change people that way. As an example, I did not ask RFK Jr. about a statement he made regarding so-called climate deniers in 2014: “They should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague.” Mr. Kennedy was referring to the Koch brothers then, but I could just as well take it personally because I am something of a “climate denier” myself. I think “climate change” is scientific hooey. I could easily have jumped in and asked how that old statement comports with his alleged devotion to free speech. I didn’t, nor did I ask him anything similar from the increasingly passé liberal/progressive playbook. Mr. Kennedy isn't a stupid man, and I was pretty sure he knew where I stood on most things anyway. Candidates are prepped. By keeping my mouth shut, I suspect I did more to make him question his more conventional views than I would have by putting him in an adversarial position. He’s already come a long way—so far that, as we have seen, people like Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schulz would like to see him excommunicated from the party. People like that are so orthodox, so straight-jacketed in their views, it’s likely that they haven't changed one in their entire lives. Changing views in general has always been mysterious to me. Who does it and who doesn’t? and why do they do it I have written books about it and still don’t understand it. But I have a special place in my heart for those who do. One last thing: If people did not change their views, would there be a reason for a republic or democracy of any sort? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for being a subscriber Your Feedback We may feature an excerpt of your response in the next newsletter. |
|
|