Changing positions on bills because they're unpopular seems like a good thing no? Nor does it seem like a particularly ideological position to have, Republican or Democrat. I'm actually very surprised that Biden/Harris seemed so positive for the bill. Biden and the Democrats could have easily used this themselves, Biden himself was a lame duck President and could have vetoed the bill with minimal consequences. The fact that people are getting mad at Trump for taking a gamble to placate angry public sentiment makes me think that folks have lost the political plot: democratic politicians need to support initiatives and ideas that are popular among people.
I don't disagree- and think reversing this position is a good thing.
I do however, also believe that good leaders are people with their own principles and ideas- and are willing to do what is right even if it isn't popular, when necessary. However, a huge percentage of our political leaders on both the left and right seem to have a 'dark triad' personality with narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy- and no ideals besides getting more power and admiration, that switch everything they claim to stand for on a dime like a kid trying on play outfits. I'd like to see people notice and not accept that type of 'leadership.'
I participate in some local and state level politics. You're not going to get those kind of people in politics. Every even remotely contentious legislation will get you tarred and feathered by your opponents. Opposition will use any tactic to bring you down, focusing on something silly you said 20 years ago, taking words out of context, etc, etc. The only kinds of people who can deal with that kind of political environment are the kinds of folks you see in politics.
It's the same reason you see certain introverted personality types overselected for in backend engineering teams: only a certain type of person enjoys working on something that is inscrutable to most people even users of the service they help support.
===
> I do however, also believe that good leaders are people with their own principles and ideas- and are willing to do what is right even if it isn't popular, when necessary.
It's a slippery slope from this to oligopolistic rule. Obviously the US democracy is not direct and there's an understanding that politicians balance their principles against popularity but I also think the US is of a mood that Congress is run by disconnected elites right now. Now is the time to err to populism.
I think you're essentially saying that people that have any reasonable level of integrity, ethics, or ideals - basically anyone you could trust to watch your dog when you're out of town (i.e. not the the US representative that stole money from a disabled Veteran's dying service dog)- would never willingly get involved in modern politics... which is a pretty disappointing view, but might be true.
I would say we've certainly had politicians and leaders without 'dark triad' personalities, but the most sincere ones in my lifetime were often also the least successful.
I don't think standing up for your ideals is incompatible with democracy, if you make it clear from the outset what your ideals are, and that you intend to stand by them.
However, I do think people with real ideals and vision do become inspiring leaders, and we could really use that right now. I'll admit this mostly happens at a cultural level, and probably works best outside of a political office- MLK for example.
