Stupified beyond a score of years?

LINCOLN -- Robert Louis Stevenson, the 19th century Scottish poet and author, is remembered for his lilting verses for children and his adventure tales like "Treasure Island" and "Kidnapped," not particularly for political commentary.

But he once wrote something that comes to mind in light of the latest round of complaints by critics of GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney that the former Massachusetts governor is a flip-flopper for articulating different views on a number of issues.

"To hold the same views at 40 that we held at 20," Stevenson wrote, "is to have been stupefied for a score of years."

The Scottish writer, of course, was not running for public office in 21st century America, where politicians -- and the people who advise them -- seem to put a premium on never changing your mind. So much so, in fact, that politicians sometimes go to great lengths attempting to persuade voters that they haven't actually changed their minds when clearly they have.

A case in point: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, whose anti-tax pledge by one count was signed by all but six House Republicans. Many of them appear to fear the damage at the polls Norquist and his merry band could cause if they back away from that pledge, despite the fact that in the views of many, their intransigence is a major factor in congressional gridlock.

So why isn't it OK for politicians -- or others in public life, for that matter -- to change their minds on important issues of the day?

To be sure, voters aren't likely to be favorably impressed by the wishy-washy candidate who seems never to take a stand until the polling data are in to tell him what voters think. Nor are they likely to appreciate the candidate whose changes of heart on issues appear to smack of political opportunism.

But what if new information comes to light on issues of the day?

What if the nation -- or state or community or school district or Natural Resources District, for that matter --faces a different set of circumstances now compared to when a policymaker first articulated her views?

What if a politician just plain changes his mind?

Voters could reasonably expect such a politician to offer a plausible explanation for such a change. Some may find the explanation convincing; others won't.

But to freeze our public officials into one side of an issue or another, never entertaining the possibility of change, is to oversimplify most of the complex issues we ask our elected officials to deal with and to run the risk of electing people who, in Stevenson's words, have been "stupefied" into holding the same views forever.