> remember obama was against marriage equality amongst other things at first

It is worth remembering that at that time period, which was just 2008, California literally voted to change its constitution to ban gay marriage, which was purely a popular vote which was successful. If you want 55 electoral college votes, you aren't going to be saying things that ensure the opposite outcome.

I don't think it is useful to have actual opinions if you are playing that game.

Exactly this. To effect policy you have to get elected, and Obama knew quite well that supporting gay marriage in 2008 was a big losing proposition.

Regardless of your opinions of Obama's politics, he is not a stupid man. All this nonsense about his position "evolving" is just that, nonsense. Obama was never really against gay marriage, he just needed to have viable positions to get elected.

This. I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand. It was simple. In 2008, he had to win a Democratic primary. This meant echoing the stances that would be popular with Democratic primary voters. In Obama’s case, he needed all of the black vote as well. Only 60% of Democrats in 2008 supported marriage equality, compared to 80% in 2020 (https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...). Black voters are more likely to be religious, more likely to regularly attend church and therefore less likely to support marriage equality (https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/182978/relig...). Pleasing black voters meant taking a “safe” stance on gay rights, one shared by all mainstream national politicians at the time.

In 2012 it was different. There was no primary. Obama could afford to be less of a follower and more of a leader. Black voters might not be enthusiastic about gay rights, but there was no doubt they’d show up to vote for their guy. So Obama calculated he could get the black vote and the gay vote by “evolving” his public stance.

This is of course separate from his own personal stance, which likely hasn’t evolved in a long time. What people find difficult to understand is that public figures have public and private personas.

To be honest that sounds like lying and manipulating the public.

Not singling out Obama here because all politicians do it to an extent (the ones who don’t never get far).

Just calling out it’s not exactly a virtue.

Is it virtuous to be truthful when that means giving up a chance to meaningfully improve the world?

Obama presided over many terrible things, but overall the amount of terrible things dropped during his tenure.

Not sure virtue is the right word but it’s more complicated than “lying bad”.

You’re arguing the “ends justify the means” which can often end up in some pretty horrible abuses.

What if it is more an observation than argument?

We have a system where you get a large performance benefit from doing the tactics mentioned above.

Therefore, the system will always be moving towards more consistently acting that way. It's not right or wrong driving much of anything, just survival.

If this is bad, the incentives must be changed; you can't just wish people were nicer, cause even if you got your wish magically, they'd still lose to those that aren't

Behavior follows the rewards. Personal, political, corporate, and especially in the natural world.

Not just politicians, although they are the most visible at it.

How else would you get change in the US (and other western democracies I guess?) Not so long ago politicians were chastised for “flip flopping”. How does one incorporate new information and update their views in such an environment?

It is interesting that our whole system is based on lying and justifying lying.

Lying? Manipulating? What?

Is it wrong for a politician to mirror the opinions of their voters? That’s literally what a representative democracy is supposed to be.

Is it wrong for a person to express their heart felt opinion to folks who like and trust them? Isn’t that what all human communication is?

Obama did the right thing, in both 2008 and 2012. If he does 2008 differently, he remains a Senator with no national platform. If he does 2012 differently and doesn’t use his national platform to advocate for gay rights, maybe it takes longer for it to reach 80% support in the general population.

If you’d like to actually understand politics, I’d suggest reading The Dictators Handbook or watching this video for the tldr- https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

The ends don’t justify the means, but you hear a lot of elites talk about tricking the population, because they think the average person is dumb. Then they can get elected and can really change the laws when they are in power to help their subjects who “clearly can’t help themselves”.

Electing a representative who will make decisions on your behalf is what representative democracy is.

In a representative democracy, do you have a say, control or checks in what decisions those representatives you elected make? Or do they do whatever they want and, tough luck, wait 4 years? Or do they do the opposite of what they promised and tough luck, 4 years again? And the same 2 parties which are essentially the same can get elected and none else, so... tough luck in general?

If you have a system that consistently makes better decisions and leads to better outcomes for more people across countries and eras, I'd be delighted to hear it.

You know, China's system made wonders. Maybe everyone should follow it? No other system achieved such an unprecedented economic growth and lifted so many people out of poverty. Freedom? No need, you don't have more in the US anyway. US is just better at PR towards some of its own citizens.

Dismissing criticism about our system,in which the officials just do whatever they want without checks and lie every four years to keep doing it, by saying "tell me a better system", implies you have given up. Good for you, but at some point the "best system in the world" was monarchy because the question "can you tell me a better system" had no answer either.

Would you say the same things about John McCain during his election campaign?

Certainly. McCain had to say what would win him the primary. That’s just how a representative democracy works. You’re a follower first, a leader later. I can’t say how President McCain might have led his supporters.

I think McCain might be the ultimate example of an established political personality 180'ing their rhetoric to win an election. The maverick disappeared, and then evidently came back in a wheel chair to 'bravely' thumbs down an obamacare repeal attempt lol.

>I don’t know why people found Obama’s position on gay marriage so difficult to understand.

Because he could have just as easily STFU'd and said some mumbo jumbo without giving a real answer. As a career politician (and well spoken one at that) giving a non-answer that gives both sides hope he'll be on their side was perfectly within his capability.

Oh you know better? He accomplished his goals - being elected twice. Marriage equality also become a reality in his tenure. A big part of that was it going on the ballot with him in 2012 and winning.

Maybe he isn't the one who needs to STFU.

I think that kind of gets to my point though. Politicians follow what gets them elected and I think that's an argument that non-elite, non-special interest movements have made change.

Some rightfully point out below that there's always politician BS lip service, saying something during the election and not following through or doing the opposite.

But on this issue both 'sides' show the point I'm trying to make. Public sentiment, not industrial lobbyists, drove anti-queer policy (though to be fair with Prop 8 you could call the mormon's monied elites since they evidently have a ginormous secretive endowment controlled by a few white guys).

And then in just a few years popular opinion turned, laws/policy followed at a lightning fast pace. Because politicians want to get elected. Pretty amazing. I distinctly remembering talking about marrying my at the time long term boyfriend, my parents didn't realize I could get married like a year after SCOTUS opinion & they are very supportive.

i think and hope that there are many examples like this, which parent's study seems to show doesn't exist, at least affecting business/tax/money policy

I think company policies and advocacy has actually made a significant positive difference on some of these issues. In some of the big banks and other corporations, HR departments fall over themselves to promote LGBTQ representation, minority right champion programmes, inviting in diverse speakers and setting up representation forums.

Yes I know most of it is meaningless me-too bullshit and to an extent is even done cynically to make themselves look good as much as enact actual change. It's largely done to make hiring easier, but nevertheless the fact that big companies openly and publicly promote these attitudes does matter to politicians. As big employers, companies get a say in local, regional and national policy development. They comment on and influence advertising, safety, accessibility, transport and zoning regulations. They are big donors to political campaigns. Over time the fact that they have consistently and persistently pushed the same narrative has I think had a normalising effect.