The Flip-Flopping Label Has Jumped the Shark

by Damozel | You know who never changes his position, no matter how wrong the facts prove him to be? George W. Bush. He just keeps throwing out new reasons why he’s right, hoping one will stick.

Modifying an incorrect position or reversing yourself when the facts prove you wrong may well be a flip-flop. But it’s also the mark of a sane human being. Remember: it’s the crazy people who keep doing the same thing after it’s clear that what they think is either not true or that it doesn’t work.

I hate the whole ‘flip flop’ label and the power it has in political discourse. What matters is (1) the changed position; (2) whether it represents a fundamental change in some core belief; and (3) the reason why the politician changed it. But instead of asking why the politician who said ‘A’ is now saying ‘A + B’ or is now saying, ‘Not A, C,’ people just dance around jeering, ‘Flip-flop! Flip-flop!’

There’s a difference between (1) elaborating or modifying your position to take account of new data, (2) because your core beliefs have changed, or (3) because you’re pandering to some hypothetical set of voters.

Before jeering at Barack Obama even about FISA (which I see as a true reversal, whereas his position on Iraq is not), be sure to check out these links about John McCain here and here. McCain’s hasn’t modified his positions; he’s changed his whole posture. And he didn’t do it based on new data or because his previous position was misunderstood. A number of his core beliefs have apparently changed or else he’s not being truthful about them.

RELATED POSTINGS

Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party

Obama:  It's Time to Begin to End the War

Federal Government Rescues Fannie and Freddie

Is U.S. Foreign Policy for Sale? Undercover Reporter Tapes Bush Pioneer Selling White House Access

My Visit to the Capitol and Up-Close Observations During the FISA Votes

IndyMac & The Apocalypse of Banks (for the Banking-Challenged)

Comments

[Adam]

Hear hear. When I see a "new" position from Obama, I go through a sort of three-step evaluation:

1) Is this actually an issue where Obama has taken a clear-cut stance in the past that applies to the current stance?

2) If yes, is his current statement a reversal of policy, as oppose to a restatement of past policies in a new light?

3) If yes, is this change about an issue fundamental to the positions Obama has taken that are important to me?

To wit:

Faith based initiatives, 2nd ammendment supreme court decision, child rape death penalty decision: no to question one.
Iraq, Free trade: yes to question one, no to question two.
Accepting public financing: yes to one and two, no to question three.
FISA: yes to all three.

Of course, you're more than free to be upset about something like Obama's faith based initiative comments. But calling them a flip flop is simply inaccurate, and calling them "tacking to the center" is only true in a rhetorical sense.

[vcsmith]

Perfectly put. The whole phrase has been used to the point of extinction. Still there are those out there working that farm. Thanks for your perspective.