Ah, the deep philosophical questions. Now we're getting into fun.

Do you suggest that consistent equals ethical. Or is it ethical equals consistent?

For the first, let's look to G.W. Bush. He isn't just consistent, he's consistent in the way only an "I'm doing God's work" man of faith can be. Does that consistency make him ethical? I would consider him ethically bankrupt. He's surely consistent in his betrayal of conservative ideals, and he sold his party and his voters a bill of goods if that's what they held him up to.

So no, consistent does not equal ethical.

For the second, I've got to break the question down.

Do positions equal principles, and does changing position equal betrayal of principle?

Let's say I'm a strong, principled environmentalist. I'm shipping things by water because it's very fuel efficient. I learn that cargo ships are horrible polluters in spite of their fuel efficiency, so I switch to rail transport where I can because it's fuel efficient and less polluting.

So is it a betrayal of principles to change to rail shipping because it's not as fuel efficient, or is it a betrayal of principles to keep shipping some product by water because it's the only way? Or is it a betrayal of principles at all?

Let's still go with the strong, principled environmentalist theme. I support plug-in hybrids, but I realize that there's a pollution cost in coal powerplants and plugging in just moves the pollution. I've always been a strong anti-nuclear activist, but I hear about new nuclear technology that's lower-cost, lower-waste and lower-risk, so I change my position on nuclear power.

Is that a betrayal, an expedient shift, or a smart evaluation of the situation? (Yes, I believe it's the last, I grew up near a nuke plant, I was never scared of nuclear power, and I keep up on the new technologies.)

So here are two difficult ones:

Let's say I'm a state legislator. I've got some strong principles that I know the majority in my district are in conflict with.

Is it a betrayal to vote my principles, or is it a betrayal to vote my constituents wishes?

Let's say I'm a small-state official, elected on small government and conservative principles. I need a few hundred million to pay for a highway and bridge project, but local coffers could never cover it. I campaign heavily for a federal appropriation to pick up the tab. It's a valuable project for the community, but my own party turns it into a symbol of government waste, so I lie and claim I was always against it. I still take the highway money and build the road, even though nobody will ever drive on it.

OK, that last example is a trick, but it's less hypothetical than the first three.

Getting back to the question then, of whether ethical equals consistent, it's a strong "not necessarily."

Changing positions may be as ethically sound as maintaining positions. Maintaining positions may be entirely ethically unsound.

So, no, I don't believe Democratic politicians stand for nothing. A foolish consistency is still the hobgoblin of small minds, though. I do believe some loudmouth Republicans and conservatives have painted the Republican party into a corner with regards to consistency and what the party stands for.