[Goose]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

Indeed, correcting course is laudable if genuine and motivated by reasons beyond immediate political expediency. However the public has shown a tendency in some cases to embrace the change and ignore the previous errors. It has also shown a tendency in some cases to reject the "sincerity" of the change and either tune out or condemn the politician as either less than honest or not very bright. Often this decision is based on whether the person involved is "liked". I would suggest Ursula von der Leyen is not particularly well liked, especially give the state of the EU economy. The following is IMO a bit "over the top" but it does illustrate some real issues. It also shows she isn't universally well liked :-)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taken-just-fi...07755.html

As a leader, it is difficult to inspire public confidence if you don't at least acknowledge a change in course. It is legitimate to argue that a certain course of action was appropriate at the time but no longer is. It is also legitimate to say your opinion has changed in the light of new information. If a leader is simply silent about such a change, it may become hard to lead. Orwell in "1984" created a society where that was done as a matter of course. History was revised to eliminate the "errors" and there was no change. The new state of affairs was always the state of affairs. IMO we aren't quite there yet, fortunately.

[Goose]

Apparently, it’s the new rage to change course, implicitly admitting years of mistakes, but never saw “I was wrong.”  I don’t endorse the tactic, but there are worse sins than correcting course.   

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2...n-00141697

Indeed, correcting course is laudable if genuine and motivated by reasons beyond immediate political expediency. However the public has shown a tendency in some cases to embrace the change and ignore the previous errors. It has also shown a tendency in some cases to reject the "sincerity" of the change and either tune out or condemn the politician as either less than honest or not very bright. Often this decision is based on whether the person involved is "liked". I would suggest Ursula von der Leyen is not particularly well liked, especially give the state of the EU economy. The following is IMO a bit "over the top" but it does illustrate some real issues. It also shows she isn't universally well liked :-)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/taken-just-fi...07755.html

As a leader, it is difficult to inspire public confidence if you don't at least acknowledge a change in course. It is legitimate to argue that a certain course of action was appropriate at the time but no longer is. It is also legitimate to say your opinion has changed in the light of new information. If a leader is simply silent about such a change, it may become hard to lead. Orwell in "1984" created a society where that was done as a matter of course. History was revised to eliminate the "errors" and there was no change. The new state of affairs was always the state of affairs. IMO we aren't quite there yet, fortunately.