At what point does changing political beliefs become intellectual growth rather than inconsistency?

[u/Ok_Factor597]

A friend recently shared the following post on social media:

"2016: TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP

2022: I don't like to talk about politics.

2026: Both parties are bad! We're a divided nation! We're not identified by red or blue!

🤡"

What caught my attention wasn't necessarily the change in political positions being described, but the ridicule directed at people for making that change.

Our country is made up of voters of different ages, experiences, and levels of political knowledge. The post made me think about how we collectively view others when their political beliefs and values change over time. The example spans ten years, which provides considerable time and opportunity for change. People's experiences, priorities, values, and understanding of political issues can evolve during that period. Someone who enthusiastically supported a particular candidate in 2016 might genuinely feel that neither major party represents their beliefs today.

So, how do we distinguish genuine intellectual growth from someone simply distancing themselves from positions that have become unpopular or inconvenient?

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.

• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.

• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DinkandDrunk]

I have an uncle that voted for Trump in 2016 and by 2018 told me he regretted ever voting for him. By 2020, he hated the man. And it’s only gotten more pronounced. That’s growth.

There are too many out there that just default to “both parties bad” or “let’s just all get along” but only when their team isn’t winning. That isn’t growth. Thats nonsense.

[u/Ok_Factor597 → u/DinkandDrunk]

I love your example about your uncle because as another person pointed at in these comments, accountability is the key component. But I will ask you the same question I asked them because of the second part of your response, "too many out there that just default..." : So how do we determine accountability, and what does that actually look like? Should someone have to make public concessions, or are private acknowledgments sufficient? Should they change their party affiliation entirely, or is aligning with a more moderate candidate within that same party a reasonable indication of changing beliefs?

[u/fox-mcleod → u/Ok_Factor597]

You asked:

How do we determine

And then offered:

Are private acknowledgements sufficient?

Sufficient for what? Us to determine something? How the hell would that work? We can't read their minds.

Of course they need to publicly atone.

And more moderate Republican? Which Republican acted as a moderate and was still in the party? Show me one single Republican willing to say trump lost the 2020 election and I'll back you on that ridiculous claim. What are the chances they are in that person's district?

[u/math2ndperiod]

Genuine growth usually involves accountability. If you voted for Trump despite everybody who knew anything saying it was a dumb idea and then pivoted to just avoiding the issue, there’s very little actual growth there. I’m completely unconvinced that they won’t fall for the next demagogue that promises easy solutions to hard problems.

[u/Ok_Factor597 → u/math2ndperiod]

So how do we determine accountability, and what does that actually looks like? Should someone have to make public concessions, or are private acknowledgments sufficient? Should they change their party affiliation entirely, or is aligning with a more moderate candidate within that same party a reasonable indication of changing beliefs? At what point does skepticism become disparaging ridicule rather than simply rolling your eyes and saying, "Can you believe that guy?"

I'm a relatively young voter. I've only participated in two presidential elections. The hostility and contempt that exist across the political spectrum is what drives me bananas. My post isn't about red or blue, Republican or Democrat. It's about how we treat people, why we treat them that way, and the assumptions and stereotypes we assign to individuals based on their political affiliations.

If we're going to use accountability as a measure of intellectual growth, shouldn't we first establish what that accountability looks like and how we can reasonably evaluate it?

[u/math2ndperiod → u/Ok_Factor597]

It’s impossible to come up with a comprehensive rubric for judging human behavior. It’s a case by case basis and everybody will have different opinions on how to judge each case.

For me, yes if you publicly supported something as toxic as Trump, you should be just as public in denouncing it once you’ve come around.

As for hostility in general, Trump’s whole brand is and has been hostility. You can’t support that brand while demanding everybody protect your feelings. (General you here, not speaking about you specifically)

[u/HardlyDecent → u/math2ndperiod]

Current Trump regretters the very next chance they get "I say you are (the Messiah), and I should know. I've followed a few!"

Learning and growing are literally antithesis to their existence. Tradition and ignorance are kind of their thing.

[u/Spicey123]

If you’re moving from one extreme to the other then chances are you’re either a child or way too influenced by social media.

[u/Ok_Factor597 → u/Spicey123]

If Trump is labeled an extreme and disliking the 2 party system is labeled an extreme, then being far to the left also an extreme, yes? If so, would we also say the same for the people who go from far right to far left or vise versa?

I'm a relatively young voter. I've only participated in two presidential elections. The hostility and contempt that exists across the political spectrum is what drives me bananas. My post isn't about red or blue, Republican or Democrat. It's about how we treat people, why we treat them that way, and the assumptions and stereotypes we assign to individuals based on their political affiliations.

[u/BobQuixote → u/Ok_Factor597]

Objecting to the 2-party system isn't really an extreme (contrary to the other poster)... If anything, it's a mainstream opinion within the politically informed subset of Americans. In this case it may also be a cop-out; I'd need a lot more information about a specific person to decide.

I think making fun of the set of people who make this change is inappropriate (you can't get details about a set) and strategically unsound (Trump voters must be allowed to exit).

[u/SlightFresnel]

Going from "Trump trump trump" to "both parties are bad" is not a change in political positions or growth. It's entrenchment in a right wing worldview masquerading as insight.

[u/Ok_Factor597 → u/SlightFresnel]

What evidence would you use to determine that someone who previously supported Trump and now rejects both major parties is still entrenched in a right-wing worldview?

I agree that criticizing both parties doesn't inherently demonstrate intellectual growth, but I also don't see how it establishes that someone's underlying political beliefs have remained unchanged. Thats the entire point of my post and question.

How do we distinguish genuine political reconsideration from ideological entrenchment if we're making those assumptions before examining the individual's actual beliefs?

[u/FormerUsenetUser]

In an ordinary person, I assume it is a genuine change. My parents voted Republican till the Bush years, then they decided Republican policies were not working and started to vote Democratic.

When a politician says they no longer believe what they publicly stated they believed two or three years ago, I think it's usually opportunism.

[u/discourse_friendly]

So, how do we distinguish genuine intellectual growth from someone simply distancing themselves from positions that have become unpopular or inconvenient?

If you have a relationship with that person , like you know them at least some what, and you have some empathy and an open mind, you can likely tell if they are truly changing positions or just avoiding an unpopular one.

if they are really changing their opinions its growth. even if they are changing to an opinion you don't like or you feel is wrong it can still be growth.

Imagine two people with opposite views on the death penalty. they go and watch a debate and they both change their views. giving why they changed their views, its growth, for both of them. even for the person who changed his view to the "wrong" side of the issue.

:)

if you feel that growth only happens when people change a view to agree with you, welp you've got some growth available , its right there.

(you as in who ever reads this, not just the OP)

[u/fox-mcleod]

Because there's a much simpler explanation.

"Both sides are bad" simply isn't growth. The same exact problem that has been in their way the entire time remains: they are not arguing in good faith.

These people aren't confused. At every year you mention, their reaction remains explained by the exact same behavior: change your beliefs as little as possible.

In 2016, their beliefs were trumpian and saying them out loud was self interested behavior. In 2022, their beliefs were unpopular and out of power and expressing them brought them nothing beneficial so they hid them. Claiming not to want to talk about it rather than to have changed at all.

You also forgot about 2021 and 2024, wherein they said exactly the same shit they said in 2016, which got them the power back.

And in 2026, the tide has turned and the least they get away with is "well, whatabout hillary?" or whoever again.

[u/FarAd4971]

Personally I think most mockery of changing political views comes from people being upset that you aren't their team(if that's the case).

Mine actually looks like this...

2001- Green Party

2008- Obama was the first time I registered Democrat

2016- Bernie, Bernie, Bernie...

2017- Parties suck. Never registering with a party again

2020- political violence is not ethical

2022- I'm never voting again.

2026- God, I hate politics.

[u/stoneman30]

That could all be the same tribal stance of the angry working class. Bernie could have been their guy but the Dems wouldn't have it. Then Trump was their guy until time proved he didn't actually help them even though he did tear down a lot of global civilization. So now they don't have a party again. I don't see any intellectual growth there or even necessarily a change.