With a Federal election potentially looming, one of my pet peeves is going to come out: that’s some (many?) people’s inability to differentiate between matters of principle and policy. 

You can think of a principle as an ethical standard.  Most people actually agree on most principles. It is the policy that achieves those principles that we disagree upon.

For instance, two people may completely agree on the principle of safety.  However, one may promote a policy of banning all handguns while the other may support making them readily available with no strings attached.

It is okay to change one’s stand on policy issues. It shows the ability to compromise, which is a good thing.  However, it is not normal to change one’s principles (people’s views on principles do change over time, but it’s not typical).  For instance, either you believe in the principle of racial equality or you don’t.  If you do then chances are that you won’t suddenly turn into a racist bigot. 

Unfortunately political parties in Canada (and the States for that matter) deliberately confuse people when someone from a different party changes his or her stand on a policy issue.  People are often painted as dishonest or indecisive. 

A lot of President G.W. Bush’s failures stemmed from the fact that he was stubborn on issues of policies.  When that happens, policies become principles instead of simply a mean to achieve a principle. I remember a time when tax-cuts, wars, privatization of social security all turned into goals, rather than a method to achieve goals.  You can see how unsuccessful he was with most of his policies. 

We should not penalize people for showing flexibility on policy issues, provided that it helps achieve the principle goal sooner. Rather, we should encourage it and support it.