Flip-flopping Away

It has become popular sport in some circles to dismiss the importance of a politician with an accusation of “flip-flopping”. Someone takes a certain position on an issue, then later takes a divergent position on the same issue. “He’s flip-flopping,” they say. There goes his credibility!

Monday’s edition of The Washington Post listed the top Barack Obama flip-flops and the top flip-flops by Hillary Clinton. Obama has alledgedly changed his tune on Special Interests, Public Financing, the Cuba Embargo, Illegal Immigration, and the Decriminalization of Marijuana. Hillary’s flip-flops are said to include NAFTA, No Child Left Behind, Ending the War, Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants, and the Florida and Michigan Delegates.

Without going into the details on these particular topics, or any others on which the candidates have evidenced a change of heart or tune, let me say that sometimes flip-flopping can be a good thing. Talking out of both sides of one’s mouth is an abomination, but a good healthy flip-flop is sometimes quite refreshing.

“Flip-flop” can be—and is—used by some to imply inconsistency. In this sense it has to do with altering one’s beliefs and principles depending on which way the wind is blowing. When that is the meaning of the term, I would have to agree that flip-flopping is an unsavory thing.

Unfortunately, there are some critics who see any nuance of a change of heart or mind as a “flip-flop”. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to hope that a candidate might continue along a learning curve as additional information becomes available. Condemning any alteration in opinion or policy is relegating the candidate to intellectual flat-lining. Is a brain-dead president what we are searching for?

Should we not admire a person—particularly a person in public life—who is open to the concept of altering an opinion when new data is available that contradicts or seriously calls into question the original opinion? What I find more disconcerting is the person who adopts an attitude of “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts”.

So let’s hear it for the “flip-flop”! Let’s hear it for the one with enough intellectual honesty to stand up and say, “Yes, that’s what I believed and what I said; but on the basis of continuing study and learning more about the subject, I have now arrived at a different conclusion”.

And let’s stop calling such people “flip-floppers”. They are the rock-solid leaders we can trust to find for us the surest path to the future.

Agree totally, Joe . What would have happened if those segregationists in the South had not be enlightened. Should they all have been taken out and shot?

Kathy

Many people want to live with a fantasy that our leaders are men and women of resolve and absolute moral certitude who were never wrong and can never be wrong. A flip-flop doesn't just imply inconsistency, it requires that the flip flopper to have made a bad decision about something, either before the flip or after the flop. Thus, a flip-flop reveals a deep character flaw. But that only applies to those people running on the other side or somebody elses candidate.

Take suspended candidate Mitt Romney. He sent a letter to log cabin Republicans saying he would be more supportive of gay rights than Kennedy. But he then opposed gay marriage and changed that stance on the campiagn. Was that a flip flop, well it depends on whether you supported Romeny. For supporters his change of mind was a reasoned moral and ethical change of heart, though Log Cabin Republicans still considered him a flip-flopper.

When a candidate becomes more like a follower party, it is not a flip, but when the follower or party doesn't like the change he flopped like a big dog. Ultimatly the accusation of flip-flop is just another false political attack, like calling Democrats socialists and Republicans facists. After all, every politcal candidate changes with the poltical wind to appeal to a courted voting block.

Well said, Joe, and thanks very much for your insights on the hidden virtues of changing your mind now and then. Since when is it a virtue to take a rigid position on a complex issue and never, ever budge?

Per Kathy's remark, Mr. Lincoln flip-flopped on the abolition of slavery. He ran for office promising only to resist its extension to new territories but "changing conditions on the ground" made him reconsider it in the established areas as well.

Modern day examples abound. The recent presidential candidate I found the most promising was Mitt Romney, our recent governor of Massachusetts. He was a successful businessman, CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics, the ran as a conservative in a liberal state and governed as a centrist. That sounds pretty more like the citizen/politician the founding fathers were, and tried to cultivate, than most of 'em nowadays. But he never gained traction, mainly because of flip-flopping. His most assailed position was that he was pro-choice as a Massachusetts politician then rediscoverd a pro-life position as national Republican candidate. Did he lack all conviction or was he merely being realistic about the chances of winning in those given venues?

If McCain wins nationally I'm hoping he'll flip-flop on the McCain/Feingold campaign financing bill, which I regard as a direct assault on the First Amemdment. If Obaba wins, I'm expecting him to flip-flop on a whole lot of things: Attacking our ally Pakistan, talking with the world's most hideous dictators without preconditions, undoing NAFTA and jacking up corporate taxation regardless of its effect on job creation.

The remaining three major candidates have little executive experience; which is why I prefer governors moving up to president. Governor is an executive post; Senator is not. Anybody moving into the Oval Office for the first time generally discovers he has a lot to learn. Most of them realize they have to juggle a lot of legitimate but competing causes and that, like the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want." We the people might give them credit occasionally, instead of assuming they're spineless catspaws for special interests.

Tom, you make excellent points. I agree with your post totally. Thank you for contributing to this important discussion.

Kathy