As a young staff member on my highschool newspaper, I wrote a scathing (ahem) indictment of presidential candidate Clinton (original recipe) during the ’92 election. My argument, basically, was that you couldn’t trust him because he had publicly reversed his stand on abortion during his time as governor. I should point out that at the time, I firmly believed that President Bush (George H.W.) was the best leader for the U.S. and that the Republican party could do no wrong. Two years later I was a registered Democrat. Four years later I was interning on the Hill for a Democratic Senator.
Most people probably identify with this experience–as you get older, you learn new things, meet new people and your views change. It’s perfectly OK. Actually, it’s respected–it shows you have an open mind, and are willing to listen and learn from those from different backgrounds or views. However, this type of personal evolution is not tolerated in politicians.
Last week’s New Republic featured the article, “Flipping Off,” by Jonathan Chait, which looks at the political phenomenon of flip-flopping and how it can doom some candidates and be overlooked for others. Specifically, he looks at GOP candidates Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Both Giuliani and Romney have been called on the carpet for their changing opinions. Both have changed their views on abortion and Giuliani revised his stand on gun control, while Romney re-evaluated his opinions on gay rights.
These decisions are now seen as marks against their credibility and trustworthiness. It does not help that both governed traditionally liberal enclaves prior to this race, making it seem like they are just pandering to the majority. But, apparently, these are minute in compared to McCain’s trip back and forth on the political pendulum. Not only did he meet with Democratic leaders about switching parties, he supported legislation too liberal for some Democrats. Yet, he is not called a flip-flopper.
I find the argument that a politician is a flip-flopper to be ridiculous and cheap as a means of questioning his or her moral standards. Oh no! She is admitting she was wrong! She can’t stand by her decisions! We can’t trust her!
I’d rather politicians admit their mistake. Politicians (though we forget) are human too. They grow, mature, and learn. Even though they’re not young, impressionable teenagers, they still do not know everything. Maybe they have seen something or met someone that has changed their mind. I can respect that. I welcome that. Bull-headedness is dangerous in government. You must have the fortitude to follow-through on your decisions, but to persist when you’ve been proven wrong is foolhardy. At that point, you’re not serving the people, you’re serving yourself.
I admit, there are politicians who change their views just to get votes. Was this the case for McCain? Probably. I think he definitely fits more comfortably on the left side of the aisle. But, he wants to run, so he’s playing the game and embracing conservatism. As for Guiliani and Romney, who knows? Maybe they were doing what they felt was best for their constituents in that time or that context.
Unfortunately, a lot of people take the bait and are easily swayed by the use of phrases like flip-flopper. In a perfect world, we’d have a government with more transparency and a better informed public. But for now, flip-floppers beware. We wouldn’t want you growing as people, now. That would just be bad news.
