"In 1977, at least, he wished to have people believe that he shared and was proud of an attitude toward women that is not acceptable in a politician. In 2003, all he has said is that he doesn't remember the interview"

The quote by Michael Kinsley deals with the nuanced concern of public figures facing accountability for past attitudes and declarations, with a particular focus on gender problems. It highlights a dual temporality involving a political leader's past and present position on controversial views about women. The mention of 1977 communicates a historic context in which this politician supposedly wanted to project or align himself with a particular attitude toward ladies-- an attitude considered to be inappropriate or unacceptable for somebody in political office. This might imply a misogynistic or purchasing from perspective that, although possibly more endured in previous decades, would not be appropriate by contemporary requirements of political accuracy and gender equality.

Fast forward to 2003, and we see a shift in story. The statement recommends an avoidance strategy: the politician now declares to have no recollection of the interview where such mindsets were expressed. This lack of memory serves as a form of deflection, avoiding direct duty or the requirement to reconcile with the previous position. The quote implies skepticism about the genuineness of forgetting such a substantial previous occasion, especially when this past mindset could trigger reputational damage in a contemporary political environment that requires regard for gender equality.

Kinsley's quote, therefore, raises critical questions about accountability, memory, and the evolution of social norms with time. It provokes inquiry into how political leaders navigate their historic statements or conduct as societal expectations change. The case presents a broader discussion on how such shifts demand retrospective reflection and adjustment, not simply in individual beliefs but likewise in public statements or apologies, to maintain trustworthiness and integrity in the eyes of the general public. Furthermore, it challenges citizens and society to consider what they must anticipate from their leaders in regards to acknowledging and resolving their past actions.