Confessions of a Flip-Flopper
Please do not link to this article or pass it around to your friends, unless you really must. And please, no Twitter or Facebook. It’s all quite embarrassing.
Nevertheless, I no longer in good conscience can withhold this information. In the grand tradition of the father of our country, I cannot tell a lie.
I have been — and still am, on occasion, alas — a flip-flopper.
Indeed, if I were to be under subpoena by a House committee and asked the eternal question: “Are you now or have you ever been a flip-flopper?” I would — under penalty of perjury — have no recourse but to answer, “Yes. Yes, Congresswoman Pelosi [or whoever], I have. I have done it many times. Sometimes I just…. change my mind.”
In truth, I have been flip and flopping from a very young age. I had been gobbling M&M’s when I went to Raisinets as my candy of choice. I drifted from Howdy Doody to Captain Video as my favorite television show without so much as notifying the network. I was a highly unreliable fellow, not even faithful to Clarabel.
It went on from there. In junior high school I switched girl friends. And even worse, they switched on me. I went from basketball to tennis as my favorite sport. (Okay, I was too short for the former.)
It was a downhill slide into college where I couldn’t make up my mind between Hemingway and Fitzgerald, and then Balzac and Flaubert, as my favorite author. I even considered changing majors from English to Comp. Lit.
My senior year I flirted with a career in the CIA while, at the same time, participating in anti-bomb demonstrations on campus.
Talk about flip-flopping!
Maybe I should have changed my middle initial from L. to I. Roger Inconsistent Simon.
In my adult life I have been a disgraced muddle of thought. I waffle on everything from preferred cuisine (Japanese or Italian?) to the existence of God.
Which leads, of course, and you knew this was coming, to politics.
Dear Roger:
Ya nailed it.
BUT, I wouldn’t call it flip-flopping or even fence-sitting as such…
I’d call it ‘adaptive’.
Life isn’t a stale, stagnant, unchanging thing. Life is ever evolving.
Much as you described yourself, well, that is the American electorate. People can switch on a dime. That’s our human nature and it’s a GOOD part of our human nature because it means we don’t want to be SUCKERS. We can CHANGE our minds because we OWN our own minds.
People who are stodgy and set in their ways worry me far more than people who can roll with the punches and adapt.
Blessings to you, Roger.
Sorry I haven’t posted much on PJM lately. I’ve been going through a litany of allergy related health issues that have rendered me in a state of pure agony. I am finally working through the pain and healing.
((HUGS)),
Delia =0)
Don’t feel too ashamed, Roger. Everyone changes one’s mind. The difference between flip-flopping and changing one’s mind is kind of like the difference between effrontery and chutzpah, or between scheme and plan; it’s nuance. Let me put it this way: A flip-flopper is like a willow that bends with every breeze of the popular whim, and a changing of mind is more like the sturdy oak tree that gets broken by the storm-force of reason.
Usually, when one changes one’s mind, it stays changed. The flip-flopper, however, can flip, then flop, then flip, and when called on it, can equivocate, change the subject, project, or speak fluent jibberish. The one reason the flip-flopper never gives for flip-flopping is that he flips when public opinion flips and flops when public opinion flops. That kind of sooth-saying would cause people to think he was unprincipled and not honest.
I don’t think that flip-flopping is primarily a change in public opinion. We live in an age of revolution that has been going on for at least six centuries. It is no wonder that such an unsettling history leads to confusion and transformation of political views. I tried to outline the chief turning points in the ascent/decline of the West here: http://clarespark.com/2011/10/24/turning-points-in-the-ascentdecline-of-the-west/. As for politicians, they may be opportunists, changing their line to suit differing constituencies, or they may be cynics, who believe in nothing but power and its perks.
“The one reason the flip-flopper never gives for flip-flopping is that he flips when public opinion flips and flops when public opinion flops.”
This is the flaw in the article. Mr. Simon, the term ‘flip-flopper’ does not mean what you think it means. It means someone who goes back and forth on his representation of his opinion. If you change your mind as you grow up, that is one thing. If you change it back, usually out of convenience to yourself, that makes one a flip-flopper. The flip requires a flop to make the flip-flop. This is so elementary, I cannot help but think you are being purposely obtuse, so you can downplay what Romney and Gingrich do.
Mandates are good. No, bad. No good.
AGW is real. No, it’s not. Yes, it is.
That may be your understanding your trumpeting. What is comonly or typically reported is going form one to the other. Your version is atypical. Science on the otherhand is different. If AGW is real or not? It is not a matter of my core principals. I am principaled. Some of the scientists are not. It involves a continuing of checking and re-checking. Previous conclusions may be wrong. New dicoveries crate new reactions. Which, gives the appearance of changing one’s mind. But in fact it is evolving.
While it’s true that people change their minds and that opions evolve over time (my own opinion regarding how to deal with illegal immigration has evolved to be unacceptable to most of my fellow conservatives), when one flips or flops at politically convenient times…say, when you decide to run for President of the United States instead of Governor of Massachusetts…it doesn’t look genuine. It looks calculated and disingenuous – and shows genuine contempt for the intelligence of the average voter.
I suspect people who would support such a candidate care less about the country than they do about putting someone in office with the right initial after his name, regardless of whether said candidate would merely tread water and maintain the status quo rather than move the country in a positive direction…or even worse, secretly adhere to his old beliefs and implement them – to the dismay of his duped supporters.
So, if it’s all the same to you, I’ll choose another candidate who didn’t have a politically convenient change of heart when trying to appeal to a different group of people.
I don’t even recognize my political self from a dozen years ago. Things change, we learn, things change some more, we learn more. In my case, after it is too late to matter, we begin to understand some things. One thing I have learned is that ripping on Republican candidates will not help to defeat the socialists. Just vote for the guy you like best in the primary and then we will get on with trying to defeat the latest cadre of regressive minded socialists.
I have held my nose in past elections and cast votes for George HW Bush, Bob Dole, George W Bush, and John McCain. It has finally sunken through my thick skull that voting for the “not-Dem” regardless of his squishiness guarantees the following: another establishment moderate in the next-go round (because the elites assume I’ll vote for whoever they nominate, no matter how bad he is) and more of the status quo, by which I mean more spending, more entitlements, and no serious attempt to roll back the mess of the past 50 years.
This time, if it’s Romney the flip-flopper, I’ll either vote third party or leave my presidential ballot blank. If he’s really such an awesome candidate (which he isn’t), he’ll win without me…and I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror because I refused to vote for a liberal-in-conservative clothing who is only marginally better than Obama.
The unique problem we have this time is that the USA is in real decline and real peril and there is no chance to reverse that until we get Obama out of office. You are correct, it might not matter, but I will gamble on a chance to do better every time against no chance at all.
Although I have followed this course myself, and cursed Republicans for doing such a really poor job of promoting the candidates they DO choose, I have to say the glow of virtue isn’t all that warm–and the party doesn’t notice. It just does the same damn things. Which is why I’m dreadfully afraid that our Fearless Leader will end up with at least another 4 years. No one wanted Romney the last time around. Really, choosing McCain over Romney as a candidate? Yet that’s what was done. By extension, they’d have to think McCain was a better candidate than any one running now, and he lost to an inexperienced pretty boy.
Those who have honestly changed our minds tend to want to explain why they changed. We tend to want to change others’ minds as well. And we tend to be ashamed of our previous stance.
Those that change for social/political reasons dont want to talk in depth about it. To dwell on the change is to expose themselves as self-serving and un-believing.
I will believe someone has changed their minds when they standfastly stand up for their new “beliefs”, repudiate there past beliefs, and try to get others to see their new truth.
I can honestly say that I have flip-flopped myself. I am ashamed to admit that I am guilty of buying “An Inconvenient Truth” and watching the entire film. It gets worse, though. I believed it when I watched it!! There is no logical excuse I can give for this other than being 18 and naive. Not too long after that embarrassing episode of my life, I learned the lesson to not believe everything you hear or are told by someone else and have seen the whole issue for what it is, an elaborate hoax with the purpose of redistributing wealth on a global level.
There is something important to mention about the circumstances under which this type of behavior is acceptable. As someone who encourages people to search for the truth without the media spin, I cannot fault someone who comes to realize the error of their ways and has evolved enough as a person to admit when you make a mistake. None of us are perfect and it is safe to say that all of us has been wrong at one point in our lives.
That brings me to the current situation that conservatives find themselves in. The MSM would like it to become common knowledge that the only way to beat Obama is by electing Mitt Romney. This fact alone should be enough of a reason for any conservative to cross him off their list. Obama has hand-picked him to be the only candidate that he has considered to be a viable opponent since he would like nothing more than for us to buy into that message and nominate Romney as our best possible way to defeat him. If you still have not crossed Romney off your list, this should be causing alarms to sound and red flags to fly as far as the eye can see.
Still, some conservatives have chosen to ignore these warning signs out of fear of another 4 yrs of Obama. It is simply mind-boggling how anyone can ostracize Obama voters for buying into the “hope and change” campaign and at the same time, support Romney’s claims that he’s a conservative, has always been pro-life and my personal favorite, that Romneycare was acceptable because it technically was constitutional. I have a newsflash for everyone that buys into this mentality….both the left and right are supposed to be acting within the constitution!! You do not deserve credit because someone else has followed you with effectively trampling on the constitution!! That is the same as saying that if the Supreme Court were to find Obamacare to be constitutional, it is suddenly a policy that we can get behind.
Had Romney noticed the error in his ways, this might become more acceptable but I know that personally, I would have serious doubts about his capacity to make the right decisions in any situation. Instead, Romney has chosen to stand by this and reaffirm that he did the right thing. I even hear the justification that he was in Massachusetts and had to compromise and this is what the people wanted. The point that is never made is whether or not this was in the best interest of the state that he was representing. Now that there is definitive proof that it has used $93 million of taxpayer money to cover illegal immigrants and has costs that are spiraling out of control, who’s best interests were served by this? Better yet, how can you cast your ballot for someone who has shown such a poor lack of judgement when it comes to everyone’s best interest?
It is not very hard to understand why this country is in such horrible shape when you look at what the current mindset of the American electorate seems to be.
I think “flip-flop” implies a binary-logic issues, like you are pro-abortion before being against, and then change again, and again, between those opposite sides of the issue.
I don’t think the concept “flip-flop” applies to fuzzy-logic issues, like you prefer to eat candies, and then chocolates, then you prefer oranges, and then back to candies, then ice creams, etc.
But if the issue is binary: you either like or dislike chocolates, then you can flip-flop about.
Also, flip-flop is not exactly like the “Road to Damascus”, or the “Crossing of the Red Sea”. I went from Christianism to Objectivism after a “conversion” process with a lot of study, discussion, analysis and self-analysis. So, jewish people going from slavery to freedom by crossing the Red Sea is not flip-flopping, although many of them wanted to go back to Egypt. If St. Paul after converting to Christianism (in the road to Damascus) decided to go back to his old ways of persecutor of christians, then it would have been a flip-flop.
Finally, it’s possible to change your mind in many issues and perform a flip-flop: if you really think and meditate and analyze the issue, and then you decide you need to change back to a former position, then it’s a flip-flop. It’s not an opportunist flip-flop, but I think it already qualifies as a flip-flop even if a honest one.
While you’re at it, Roger, don’t forget to remind everyone of how you used to support “traditional American values” and Christianity, then suddenly decided to eliminate the “traditional” part of the phrase by supporting gay power blocs and telling the Christian groups who had previously sponsored CPAC to go screw themselves.
I believe that would come under the heading of “flip-flopping”.
Ironically, Dr. Mercury, with all due respect, you picked one of the few topics I have NOT flip-flopped on. I have supported same-sex marriage since it became a hot button issues some years ago. BTW, when I analyze a situation, I try not to think in terms of groups – traditional or otherwise. I prefer to think as an individual. Do my best anyway.
I think many have changed because the goal posts keep moving. Take abortion: initially wanting legal abortions meant not wanting women who felt unable to cope with a or another child to resort to dangerous back alley methods and risk death. Two things changed. First, society offered more support for women who might previously been ostracized. Second, abortion rights groups in their campaigns told women that their babies were insignificant compared to sexual freedom, causing young people to lose respect for the human life created by the sexual act.
Or take gay rights: People who didn’t think gays should be hounded or denied employment were confronted with a movement that wanted to eliminate same sex toilets and celebrate on Folsom Street.
Or go further to civil rights: Have those who wholeheartedly agreed with the MLK desire to be judged on the content of his character really changed or have the Al Sharptons changed the topic? When acting white means not learning how to read then how can blacks expect equal representation on editorial boards? When gangsta rap becomes authentic, must I overlook the misogyny?
I feel a consistency in my opinions over time. It’s the advocates who have pushed the limits.
This is both fatuous and muddle-headed. You have a point you want to make, which is almost certainly to reconcile yourself to either Romney or Gingrich, both of whom make most conservatives’ and all classical liberals’/libertarians’ skins crawl.
It doesn’t (particularly) matter that you or anyone else was infatuated with the left as a youth – if it weren’t widespread you wouldn’t have such ways of dealing with the contrariness of youth as the Amish’s ‘rumsprunga’, the traditional German ‘wanderjahr’, or, more directly to the political point, the famous saying attributed to at least a dozen 19th/20th century politicians: ‘he who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart, but he who is not a conservative at 40 has no head’.
Or, to be more literary for the writer in you, the well known Emerson bit from Self-Reliance: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. … Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today.’
Nor, then, does it matter that serious people change their minds for good and sufficient reasons, or even for capricious ones at times.
What matters is whether one appears to have integrity in making choices, which can also mean different choices for different reasons. Which is what I have always taken as Emerson’s point.
What troubles so many of us about both Romney and Gingrich is not that they have changed their minds – both of which are solid 2nd rate minds, which is about as good as one is likely to get in a politician – but that they appear to have done so purely for reasons of political expedience in order to gain, acrrete more, or retain power. They are, as Shakespeare put it, ‘ambitious’ men.
From the Founders forward, we have rightly distrusted ‘ambitious’ men in Shakespeare’s sense. We do not trust their integrity or their instincts. We have no sound basis on which to believe that the conservatism they espouse today is sincere, or that it will not give way in their pursuit of power.
The difference among national Republicans is palpable, unfortunately the only candidates who come across as having integrity have either declined to run like Sarah Palin, or are unelectable, like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum. (I would add here as a classical liberal, I wouldn’t support Santorum because I think his policies would be wrongheaded on many issues, but he strikes me as having integrity).
Although one can be fooled, integrity is rather like Potter Stewart’s famous like on obscenity ‘I know it when I see it’. It’s lack is also often manifest.
What is rarer, is someone who appears to lack integrity, but in fact has it. I’m not willing to bet the county’s future that either Romney or Gingrich fall into that rare and select company.
There’s only one way to get through the bend, and that’s going through the curve.
I waffle on everything from preferred cuisine (Japanese or
ItalianSicilian?)Hey! The Japanese don’t make good Sicilian Cannoli, capiche!?
I guess that’s why so many people today like Ronald Reagan. He had a basic political philosophy and never deviated from it. He was always a conservative, through and through, and even though he may have had a few setbacks (like the Iran-Contra problem), his focus always was on lower taxes, smaller government, and destroying the Soviet empire. A very rare politician, a person who had a basic set of ideals and then stuck with them throughout the rest of his life. And whether you liked him or hated him, at least you knew where he stood.
Where can we find a guy like that today?
That was snark, right?
Libertyship 46,
Good assessment of Ronaldus Magnus. Sadly, Tip O’Neill sent the democrats’ 1,600-page Fiscal 1986 budget proposal back to the Reagan White House on the day the previous budget would expire. The infamous Boland Amendment had been inserted into the original Reagan budget and the President signed it before anyone had time to read the current docmument. The amendment outlawed spending money fighting communists in Central America which unwittingly made Ollie North guilty.
A successful page out of the pro communist democrat playbook.
The only remnant of O’Neill is his former Chief of Staff, Crissy Matthews
I could have worded that better. It’s early…
Here’s my flip-flop.
In order to see what’s on the other side of the bend, you have to go through the curve.
Lazarus Long said that “an Honest Politician is one who stays bought.”
Robert A. Heinlein
Flip flopping means moving from one position to another. Perhaps frequently. The problem many, including myself, have with Romney is not that he flip flops. It is that he has a record of saying one thing to conservatives and then doing liberal things after being elected. I personally do not trust that he will do much of what he says. In other words, I believe he is a liar. He may be a nice liar, but nice does not overcome the lying part. The country faces life and death financial issues, yet the Republicans we elected all ran on the idea of reducing government spending. Have any of them taken that novel idea seriously? Have they flip flopped on it? Or did they just lie to us to get elected? John Boehner talks like he will personally cut spending to the bone – before an election. Is his current behavior indicative of a person “serious” about reducing the size of government?
I have had it with all the non-serious types of conservatives, be they flip floppers, liars or just lazy. The country is heading off the cliff. The population supports real, serious reducitions in the size of government to save our country. And we no longer desire weak kneed, power hungry, lying, flip floppng con artists to lead the country. How about a candidate who is passionate about returning to the Constitution and vastly reducing the size of the government, so we can survive long enough for that government to matter? The one candidate who definitely does nnot fit that bill is Mitt Romney.
You are absolutely right! If John Boehner had stood tough on raising the debt ceiling, we’d have a balanced budget right now.
We would also have massive economic disruption and a strong possibility of the Democrats successfully hanging the entire economy around the neck of “Tea Party extremists.”
I’m not a huge fan of Boehner, I wouldn’t cry if he was primaried, but we need to recognize that he is in a position of weakness. Stand your ground only works when you have a strong position. If your position is weak it is a recipe for disaster.
Reagan – unlike most Republicans – had a foundation of morals and beliefs that drove his politics. Sometimes he had to compromise, but he never lost sight of what he was working for and why. Most Republicans seem to be driven by re-election. They pretens to be conservative enough to win elections.
I’ve progressed from a Reagan Republican in my teens to a pretty hard-core Libertarian on most issues.
How about a candidate who is passionate about returning to the Constitution and vastly reducing the size of the government, so we can survive long enough for that government to matter?
Romney is (seems to be) about slowing the growth of government, not eliminating it or reversing it.
“The problem many, including myself, have with Romney is not that he flip flops. It is that he has a record of saying one thing to conservatives and then doing liberal things after being elected.” AMEN, Brother Kent!!!
Romney would have to improve to be considered a flip-flopper. He’s worse – a panderer. He’ll say whatever he has to to get elected, whether he believes it or not.
“Many, as we know, have been accused of this crime: Romney, Gingrich, Kerry (and how), Clinton (he and she), Gore, Cain, Obama (of course)… ”
Ahh…,I see what you did there. Exactly how did Cain make your list? Perhaps you needed to give one more swipe in order to claim bona fides for some cocktail party Pulitzer. I couldn’t be happier he scares you so.
All the other names are of professional politicians who staked out positions to represent people voting for them, then acted and voted differently when elected. What separates them from Tea Party-ers is their unwillingness to suffer the consequences for their actions. I submit these careerists are nothing if not consistent and prdictable. There is no position that will not become a current core value so long as it maintains or promotes their position in Club Privilege. (for which Herman Cain is an existential threat) These people keep company by ‘voting for before voting against’- KERRY, jetting about the globe for the purpose of lowering emissions GORE, or more subtly sitting on a couch with Princess Nancy promoting ALGORE’S carbon tax scheme – NEWT.
Roger, I feel water on my back, is it raining?
My grandfather had the best take I’ve yet heard on this. He described an argument with a much older man, who gave what he thought would be a crushing last statement on the subject: “I’ve thought that, man and boy, all my life.” My grandfather’s reply: “Well, then, we’ll stop here. It never makes sense to argue with a teenager.”
The opposite of flip-flopping is never changing. I once believed in Jimmah Carter. Pause for shudder.
Flip flopping is a natural state of a healthy and flexible mind. There is nothing quite so intellectually debilitating as toeing a political chorus straight up and down party lines or the droning of an insect passed off as creative humor.
Perception of such is quite revealing. No doubt Lady Gaga’s fans think her music is progressive but close your eyes and the arrangements are little different from Celine Dion.
No doubt OWS think their ideas as cutting edge and progressive but close your eyes and the same buzzwords, devoid of creativity and sounding as if they are clones zapped from the same mold endlessly repeat themselves and with that same dumb Che Guevarra shirt.
In the 60s, it was very clear who were the rednecks but today yoga teaching, tea drinking liberals have come more and more to resemble a stereotype of a corn cob smoking hillbilly whose white lighting still holds the biggest thrill.
Loved your post! So true. So true.
The problem with flip-flopping is this: While I might be happy with where he has landed now, will I be happy with where he is going next? Yes, I know, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but never let it be said of our future Presidents, as it is being said of our incumbent, that “his promises have an expiration date.”
Every rational adult, when presented incontrovertible fact, can snd should change his or her thinking on issues, if the previously held belief is based on falsehood.
But that isn’t what flip flopping is, is it?
Flip flopping is almost entirely reserved for politicians who say whatever their then audience wants to hear, even if that means the the pol will actually lie about what he thinks or what his real intentions are.
The poster children for political speak flip flopping are John Kerry and Mitt Romney. Neither of these creatures feel bound by any ethical or moral ties to the truth, if it doesn’t serve their immediate needs. Somehow I doubt that this lack of restraint is limited to their political lives.
Flip floppers don’t change their minds. They change their speeches.
That needs to be on a bumper sticker!
’nuff said.
Funny the only name that comes up over and over is Romney! I will never get over Newt sitting with nag nanci smiling on that couch. Just consider all Newt’s flops! I will vote for him if he’s the one, but Romney is the better business person. Please don’t tell me how he fired people at Bain, just tell me did the company survive! That’s what should have been done with the auto company instead of turning it over to unions.
If your flip results in a better human human being it laudable, only when it does not are you a flop.
For me, it’s not about whether a person’s current positions mirror my own (i.e., “a flip-flopper for me,” a person who’s “going my way”).
It’s about sincerity. Has a candidate changed positions out of conviction, or has he or she merely blown with the political wind? Have past flip-flops reflected legitimate changes or heart — or were they simply an outgrowth of expediency?
If the latter’s the case, then pretending to agree with me now counts for little. I have more respect for sincere people who hold views with which I disagree than I do for those who modify their positions solely for the purpose of courting my vote.
Many people who complain about “flip-floppers” are not faulting pols for views that have legitimately “evolved.” They are expressing their mistrust of shape-shifters who will say anything to get elected.
It isn’t easy, I concede, to discern the motives of politicians. But it is equally dificult to fathom the intentions of those who are wary of “flip-floppers.”
Obama an FFer? Seems he’s been a hard leftist all along. Oh, he’s lied about his beliefs. Is that what you mean?
How does one tell if someone is a liar or an FFer? Methinks that’s the problem with being an FFer. Is Romney lying about universal healthcare or is he truly converted. Most of his arguments start with, “back then I had a legislature that was 95% against me.” So, is he saying that he’s actually just a normal politician and will follow his polling? We call those RINOs in some circles.
Flipped: selected voices from a free America.
Voters vote for politicians to represent them, so when politicians change their minds about a political issue when the blocks of voters that elected them have not, they have violated the basic contract of representative government. Political geniuses (also known as leaders) can change their minds and then change the minds of their voting block. Lots of people in elected office convince themselves that they’re geniuses but turn out to be flip-floppers because the voters hold fast to their original views.
By this reasoning Romney has not yet betrayed any voters because he has changed his mind in between holding elective office, not while he is in office. If his character is such that he changes his views just to get elected, you might expect him to keep to his changed views in order to get re-elected. As for a possible second term — well, that’s a long way off …
I say, as long as we have an anchor firmly embedded in tierra firma, ie. our non-negotiable principles, we can give ourselves plenty loose rope to flop about on surface issues without losing our integrity. As an evangelical Christian pastor, I just recently came over to the position that we need to legalize pot, after years of opposing the idea. I have also changed on some deeply held theological issues. But I know in whom I have believed, and politically I know in what I believe – the Constitution. I say let the winds blow and the waves crash. To quote the old Firesign Theater skit, “we are all bozos on this bus.” But the anchor holds. I will never accede to Statism in any of its mutations.
If you come to understand that you’ve been wrong about something and why, and if you’re intellectually honest, you change your mind and admit it. That’s not flip-flopping; it’s merely an aspect of maturity.
If, in contrast, you refuse to admit that you were wrong about your prior position even though you’ve abandoned it, that’s not intellectually honest. If for some reason you oscillate between positions, unable to settle on one and defend it with logic and evidence, you’re a flip-flopper.
If you combine the above with a willingness to say whatever you think will win your current audience’s affections…or votes…that’s flip-flopping and worse. And sadly, it’s a behavior we can observe rather frequently in politicians of both parties.
The disgusting form of changing your mind is suddenly agreeing with Y and pretending that you never believed X. “What? I don’t know what you’re talking about! I never said that!” I’ve dealt with this my entire life. Both my parents were inveterate liars.
Then there are some things you should bloody well explain when changing your mind. Take abortion: If you once said, “It’s a human life there in the womb,” and now you’re saying, “I firmly believe in awoman’s right to choose.” You have some explaining to do.
I’ve listened to people talk (who are NOT politicians)on the subject of turning away from the por-choice movement. They saw something that horrified them and they had an awakening. They will tell you what they learned and how they plan to fight for the unborn. But politicians can say one minute, “I’m pro-life” and a mintue later, “I’ll protect a woman’s right to have an abortion” because they believe in getting votes far above believing in either side of that issue.
“..turning away from the por-choice movement” Only one “o” away from a perfect Freudian slip.
But this is a good issue to illustrate why flip-flopping is not a good metaphor for the really tough social issues. I think if you could plot a graph of what percentage of humans are horrified at the idea of abortion for each day starting with the moment the sperm enters the egg and ending nine months later, you would find a very small number of people have a problem at hour one but that it gradually rises to a 100% horror factor in the third trimester. And yet, those who fight this battle insist on making it black and white, all along the time line. If you have just one rule for the entire time frame than I submit that your opinion has a deep religious or ideological bias and arguably you are not going to help things nor get any satisfaction in the political realm.
To get back to the article topic, where does the “flip-flop” take place for someone who gradually changes his/her perspective as to where on the curve sufficient horror sets in to affect their own choices and where does it become so abhorrent that they feel compelled to crusade to restrict the behavior of others.
There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind. We all do it and it’s usually a good thing and I wouldn’t call it flip-flopping. When you change your mind for political expediency that’s another thing entirely. Now that IS flip-flopping.
Roger: being a “conservative” automatically means that you’re a flip-flopper. Especially if said flip-flopper has anything that resembles a conscious, which you, I believe, may possess (looking to your liberal past). As an example, how can one say that he or she is for womyn’s rights, but oppose the right to teminate? When one takes such a position, they are automatically flip-flopping. And some, I suspect, feel it in their heart. Another example are the people who profess “peace”, but own firearms and want to keep the military well funded. Another would be those silly Christians, who say they “love” gay people, but who wold refuse them the equal right to marry (and would execute them in Alabama, as I understand it). Also, I hear so many conservative say they “eat right” and are concerned about a healthy diet, but continue to consume products from that whore and sell-out Betty Crocker. Thus, your article provides no new insight. Conservatives are inherently flip-floppers. It’s their nature. Like filthy goats.
I hope this womyn flip-flops soon.
I take great umbrage at your cowardly and viscious denigration of goats. . . .I raise goats , and they are not filthy, and definitely not flip-floppers. i also think it quite possible that one of the icons of the liberal dims -Bill Clinton- has more in common with a billygoat ( at least morally) then the “Christians” you are quick to link to goats.
Re: Droning insects: see: above.
What about when liberals claim they want to help the unemployed? And then they raise taxes that leads to higher unemployment? Or have high minimum wages that also leads to higher unemployment?
I guess that’s flip-flopping too according to your definition.
…how do we determine if a candidate is a flip-flopper or a FLIP-FLOPPER, if you know what I mean?
It’s pretty easy to tell them apart.
The first one comes from honest self-examination (there, I used that mildly trite phrase). The second one comes from expediency of the moment, the audience of the moment, the vote getting strategy of the moment, is an attempt to sound learned in the moment or is intentionally deceptive in order to conceal an agenda.
In fact, ff or FF is far more useful way to assess a candidate than what he or she says on any given issue.
If you ain’t got character, you ain’t got nuttin’.
There is another truism, from The Second Coming, WB Yeats
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Is this the prelude to a Romney endorsement?
There is a difference between changing one’s mind based on principle and the facts and blowing with the political winds. Romney is not a conservative. He espouses conservative positions when it benefits him politically. As President he will bow to Democratic resistance and simply play along to get along.
I don’t know about Romney, but your definition of “flip-flopper” is correct. Another word is “opportunist.” Changing your mind about your political beliefs isn’t flip-flopping. Changing your political beliefs in order to earn a reward or avoid punishment is flip-flopping.
Like you Roger, I too am a flip-flopper. The only thing that surprises me about these things is that so many people never change their minds. About anything. Sometimes, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
It takes courage to make a complete separation from small c communism to free market liberty.
David Horowitz, David Mamet, Ron Radosh and yes, our own Roger Simon…have all blacklisted themselves from friends, business associates, possibly relatives…not because they changed their mind…rather,… because they used it.
CF – You are so right. As with a lot of us, 9/11 changed everything. Not so much the attack as the reaction of the left towards it. The demonization of the USA and support for the terrorists was sickening to me.
As a former-leftist as well as a guitarist/singer/songwriter, I have apparently been ostracized by the remaining cultists for daring to look at and consider the facts. The feel-gooders, all holding the “right opinions”, are deeply shocked, challenged and ultimately threatened by my abandoning “the truth” and daring to speak out. That and the fact that AGW does not convince me have put me on “the enemies list” for many of my former friends. No loss.
Thomas, there is no shame in being lured by the small c communist bait.
After all, the “cover” arguments in the bait and switch …are all very enticing. If they adhered to a foundation of “giving, caring, kindness, open-mindedness, tolerance, free exchange of ideas, pursuit of truth”, …who would be against such things?
When I wrote an essay here (two actually) on The Inversion Narrative, it was the naked hypocrisy and the burying of truth behind cult-like dogma that shatters the myth that leftism is anything that it pretends to be.
For 9/12′ers, the stark wakeup call broke down the facade that leftism has been hiding behind for decades. They weren’t rooting for peace, they were rooting for the enemy to win.
In the current economic crisis, they are not rooting for capitalism to recover, they are rooting for it to be destroyed.
They are not rooting for peace in Israel, they are rooting for her to be eradicated.
They are not adherents to science and rigorous testing of hypotheses over religion and faith…they are abusers of science to promote the cult/faith of leftism.
They are not for “green” energy, or reduction of global warming…they are for “red” redistribution and global domination.
They “use” issues to create wedges and to guilt trip people…by seizing words on the “goodness” side of the ledger…and then creating mafia-like syndicates to slap around people who dare to cross them.
It’s a criminal enterprise. Leftists Incorporated, where truth is murdered, and facts are kidnapped.
9/12′ers recoiled against its overreach when we were attacked. In a rare moment, the mask fell and the ugly face was revealed.
Nobody with a conscience and a lick of human decency can still be a leftist today…except for those who refuse to leave the fold for reasons of peer pressure and fear of rejection. Two powerful tools in the leftists arsenal.
Small c communism is a scourge. It has co-opted the celebrity cache’, the despicably traitorous media and the in loco parenti education system of our children. It’s a pernicious disease of the mind…and worse…of the soul.
I would love a liberal…because they actually have that “goodness” instinct. But, I despise the leftists…because they absolutely do not. The liberals are gone, Thomas.
They became 9/12′ers. Or the leftists ate them…whole.
Just so, although I now refer to my politics as classical liberalism.
Yes, the left showed its true face. And it is hate.
And still, I wish the world were better and I wish we had honest opponents. I really miss the honesty that is not present.
A non-totalitarian left. It’s probably an oxymoron.
Looking back now (hindsight 20/20), it is evident that they had always been what they are today.
I don’t know how they can sleep at night. And it worries me that they can.
The title of Coulter’s book is right: Demonic.
I apologize for the flip-flopping rant.
Oh my, it must be time for a ‘You May Be A Treasonous Idiot’.
If you can’t tell the difference between a politician flip-flopping on the inalienable rights and foundational beliefs this country was founded upon and your choice of favorite food, then you may be a treasonous idiot.
Roger, I have changed my positions, but I know my mind.
I seek a fair result and when presented with additional facts or better evidence, my initial impression may not warrant continued support.
In those instances, I didn’t change my mind…my mind remained intact. I gathered new facts and evidence and weighed them against my life experiences and put them through the rigor of fair evaluation.
I don’t hold large positions on whim or fad or fancy, bias, fanaticism, blind faith…or peer pressure. I save that for small positions…my favorite football team, some relatives, and rarely…a friend. I support them, hold them dear and root for them beyond the bounds of reason and logic.
For issues of the day…I do not cement myself to a position that cannot be moved by better evidence, clearer facts…or even a more persuasive argument.
This is why I do not label myself a “conservative”…although I clearly take a VERY strong position against the tyranny of leftist totalitarianism. On some issues, I simply do not fall neatly into a “conservative” description.
These days, I find myself with very little common ground with those left of center…because they have abandoned reason, logic and analysis. It is all propaganda, all the time. It is all peer pressure, all the time.
Like my Black Lab…pulling on my leash gives me a restraint reaction.
Right now, I view runaway, rampant and uncontrolled leftism…and especially its constant attempt to cheat people out of facts and evidence…to be the greatest danger to freedom in America, the West, and the world.
When a candidate falls into the trap of cheating people out of the facts and evidence or when they are insincere…then their “retreat” to a “safer position” is expedience, not experience.
I hold nothing against a politician who learns and leads from a new wisdom. To distinguish between the politically expedient and an honest evolution …I listen to the new argument. A real one is easy to spot. And a phony one is even easier.
A flip-flopper’s new argument is based on where he wants YOU to go. An achieved wisdom through experience is based upon where the facts and evidence have taken him….whether you went or not.
This is why I do not label myself a “conservative”…although I clearly take a VERY strong position against the tyranny of leftist totalitarianism. On some issues, I simply do not fall neatly into a “conservative” description.
I wish people would stop saying “conservative” values and just call them values.
Generic, basic human values.
“When a candidate falls into the trap of cheating people out of the facts and evidence or when they are insincere…then their “retreat” to a “safer position” is expedience, not experience. ” I.e. when they are as slippery as fish out of water, flip flopping their way towards the livewell.
Isn’t the issue whether you can trust someone to stay flipped or if they are likely to flop after the election?
Setting aside penumbra and emanations, all candidates should state their core beliefs that will carry them through the enveloping regulatory and legal fog in which they will function. Or not. If God is a toss of a coin, we may be in trouble.
Captain Midnight…..WOW……did you have one of those red Captain Midnight Ovaltine mugs? I did….but alas it was lost somewhere along the way. Wonder what one would now fetch on Antique Roadshow?
But the Washington Set do it with style.
“I was wr…uh, ruh, ruh,…oh you know, that word.”
“There were other pressing factors involved at the time”
“Nope, never happened.”
For a man who makes his living from writing you certainly have trouble with the meanings of words…..and humor, if this is supposed to be that.
IF the SCOTUS doesn’t put down Obamacare (in all its permutations) and IF The One™ gains another 4 years, America has been irrevocably flipped.
I am with Andy McCarthy when it comes to placing too much decision making power in the Supreme Court.
Judicial repeal is a good thing; political repeal is better
You shouldn’t feel so bad about once being a leftist. The leftist have a neat little trick: they are ALWAYS AGAINST EVERYTHING BAD in our society, our economy, our government. Don’t like racism? The left has got you covered. Hate war? So does the left. Can’t pay your student loan? The left is on your side. The left sustains itself on people’s discontent, and it sustains discontented people with promises of Utopia. To a young person with no experience of How Things Really Work, leftism seems like a perfect fit.
It doesn’t matter how much Critical Thinking practice you’ve had in school. There’s no substitute for experience.
I’m gonna have to steal this explanation. Very nice.
It’s easy enough to tell a real flip flopper. What do they say BEFORE an election, vs. what they DO afterward.
Flip. Flop.
You would think it means changing one’s position and then changing back. Most probably for political purposes. As in what John Kerry did when he decided to run for president.
But Romney seems to be flipping and not flopping, since every position he has changed has been in the conservative direction. You would think people would like that, since probably 95% of conservatives have done the same thing in their lives. But, of course, no. We want our candidates to be 100% consistent from birth. Like nobody who has ever lived has been.
I’m for Newt myself because of his superior ability to punture the lies of the left, but on the topic of flip and flops he is probably worse than Romney, since Newt has moved left and then back right from time to time. But I don’t even have much of an issue with that as long as he can give a rational explanation. For example, it seems understandable to me that around 2007 to 2008 he might have wanted to try to find some common ground with the left, and to have thought AGW was a way to do that. If he had come out gangbusters for crap and tax, it would have been different. If it had been known at that time how rigidly extreme Pelosi was, it would have been different. If the data scandal had come out by that time, it would have been different. But none of that was true. Now he has flopped back and admits his mistake. Sounds like an example of a rational man trying to make something positive happen and actually work with the other side, and then retreating when further inforamtion comes out. But I know, Rush doesn’t approve. No compromise, ever, no matter the electoral consequences.
Hummm! Flip-flopper? So, a flip-flopper: 1)in marriage is good?, 2) How’s about as head of a company purchasing department? A bid for RFP’s is to be announced and BINGO! The flip-flop. Gee! Mr. Chu is right in with the “flip-floppers!” Holder? King of the “flip-floppers!” Emmanuel, flip-flopper extraordinaire!
Nah! Simple, sir. It’s called lack of a moral compass. Just like Sandusky. All the catholic clergy hiding behind their pious virtues while “flip-flopping” in chastity vows wooing women, children…conducting underground safe passages for known third reich criminals to latin america. Flip-floppers, all!
Most americans have a strong moral compass, sir! Right from wrong. Good from bad. Teachings of the Bible. All very straight forward. Simple, plain English.
Flip-flopping is an excuse for lack of morality (proof? Look at OWS!). Best example is We The Elite People in Washington DC. Flip-floppers, all! It’s called a “Culture of Corruption.”(Michelle Malkins book)
Most third world nations are all flip-floppers. Lawlessness is a way of life, as it was in the Soviet Union, Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Iran under the Mullahs, et al. Flip-flopping, in Our USA, abounds. A person’s lack of a moral compass, fits right in with current USA culture of flip-floppers.
That’s why We The People must vote in massive numbers this 2012…to establish MORAL CLARITY to everything USA. If Mr. Obama is re-elected, the Founding Fathers Grand experiment will cease to exist. In it’s place, a top down Keynesian type command economy will result, taking centuries to correct. God Bless America. Vote – Moral Clarity.
Poignant subject, Mr. Simon.
My father had a plaque that read; “We get too soon old, and too late smart”. I believe that is a root cause of the most averse to “flip-flopping”.
Also; A search of this article and page did not show one instance of the terms “self examination” nor “self critical”. As anyone knows that has engaged in these exercises, one can flip and/or flop, and no one would ever know the difference.
On the other hand, there are many that seem to go through life with nary a “flip”, or “flop”, or even a slight tilt, and they call themselves “liberals”. Isn’t that the definition of an oxymoron?
Howdy Doody to Captain Video. Not a flip-flop but a step up. Did the same thing myself. BTW, what were the only words every spoken by Clarabel?
Roger,
Bravo! I’m not sure blog posts get any better than this.
The issue here isn’t flip-flopping, per se. It is flip-flopping for personal advantage. One likes to think that our political leaders have an inner moral core. I have no interest in voting for the office-seeking equivalent of an unreformed Phil Connors (Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog Day). We might as well elect pollsters to political office.
Time for my flip-flop? To the legion of unreformed Phil Connors-like horndogs in the world: if it gets you laid, go for it!
Yours truly,
ThOR
It is all so clear, pure, and simple when your name isn’t on the door or beside the red or green voting light and hasn’t ever been nor is it going to be. If your opinion really doesn’t matter in the outcome, it is easy to be inalterably opposed to socialized medicine. If you’re the Republican governor of an overwhelmingly liberal/Democrat state whose Legislature is Hellbent on some sort of universal healthcare and can override your veto, you either find a way to make such legislation more palatable to your constituency or you become irrelevant. If you’re the Republican Speaker of the House but have a popular and effective Democrat President, you’re either going to find a way to craft and pass legislation that he will sign or you and your constituents become the object of scorn, see, e.g., the government shutdown. Getting the best you can isn’t flip-flopping, it is compromising.
One must have some consistent principles but in a leadership position you use those principles to guide you, not shackle you. If you can get something passed that leads you closer to your objective and doesn’t violate your principles or the principles you promised to uphold, I think you’ve done a good thing. Where this runs awry in politics is the compulsion to “do something.” The Democrats are masters of the fake crisis which requires some action by the government. What Republicans have never been good at is making the case for doing nothing. In the recent debt ceiling debacle, Comrade Obama played the Republicans like a cheap fiddle; there was no way in Hell he was going to cut off Granny’s SS check, but nobody effectively called him on it and a LOT of Republicans flip-flopped on a vital principle and a promise to the people who elected them. Between Romney and Gingrich, I worry more about Gingrich because of his legislative background. Legislative leaders are programmed to find the concensus, to make the deal, and often the deal becomes the only thing, which leads them to take positions and make deals that pierce vital principles. Romney’s experience is in executive roles and I don’t know that we know if he would succomb to the siren song of popularity and violate the trust of those who elected him. I don’t know what motivates leaders at that level; there really isn’t much of any place to go from POTUS, so who are you trying to please when you break faith with the people who elected you? I wish I knew more about why GHWB broke his “No New Taxes” pledge. That sort of thing is a flip-flop, not a compromise, but even so, maybe he believed it was better than the alternative. I do know that it was a lot easier for me to be brave and pure when my name wasn’t on the door than when it was.
It’s almost as if you are claiming that being rational and capable of adjusting to new data and events, or even the desires of the public, is a good thing.
You’re not going to burnish your conservative bona fides that way.
Actually having any clue as to what it takes to push the rope that is government is pretty damaging to your bona fides amongst the mighty, fearless RINO hunters who seem to believe that the more ignorant and simplistic the candidates views and programs, the more pure he/she is. See, e.g., Palin, Sarah and Cain, Herman.
“I wish I knew more about why GHWB broke his “No New Taxes” pledge.”
I was under the impression that he was concerned about the deficit & was engaged in a bit of “deal making” with the Democrat-dominated Congress of that time frame.
I’ll confess that I was paying essentially zero attention to politics in the late ’80s. I was recently divorced after 16 years of confinement, and was busily engaged in the process of sleeping with every woman on Earth that would let me.
All this high-minded compromise means is conservative acquiescence to the leftist agenda. This country had NEVER benefited from compromise with these people. It has to stop, or we’re done anyway.
….A message brought to you by your favorite knuckle-dragging troglodite.
BS! If you can get a step towards where you need to be by compromise, you take that step. The problem is the “do something” mentality in which compromise also compromises fundamental principles. You have to have enough of an anchor to know if an action is moving you in the right direction; if it is, and it is all you can do; you do it.
Go look with objective eyes at the Reagan Administrations; he talked like a conservative, he pushed towards conservative goals, but he took what was on the table, and in order to accomplish his agenda of bringing down the “evil empire,” he compromised with the Democrats and essentially let them run riot with domestic spending as the price of rebuilding the military and confronting the USSR. Yeah, guess he was a flip-flopper.
I guess I’m a flip-flopper too. For most of my voting life I was a faithful adherent to the Buckley doctrine. Heck, in Primary 2008 I was a Romney guy. He was the least-bad, so I was all in.
But I’ve seen the light and changed my ways. I’ve never seen a “compromise” with these radicals that has done anything but move us in their direction.
We don’t have time to place nice anymore. We need someone who’s is ready, willing and able to wage all out political war, come what may. It’s time to go for broke because our country is in its death throws anyway.
Damn it! My proof reading sucks. Guess it’s a good thing I’m just a tech guy and not a writer….
Is it reasonable to change our minds after reviewing new information and facts, and then draw conclusions that are totally different from previously held positions or should we assume it is virtuous to stand-by conclusions that have been proven wrong or contradictory to evidence.
Reasoned changes of opinion should be applauded; however, changes in opinion gauged to correspond to fluctuating political opinions of the public are laughable. Asking many of our more prominent politicians like Pelosi, Kerry, and Obama to explain their logic for changes in opinion would be laughable and is precisely why our media will never expose these politicians to the humiliation of exposing their lack of logic and intellect.
Being able to change your opinion and react to new evidence without prejudice is the mark of a critical thinker, and not necessarily an indication of a moral or intellectual weakling.
Romney panders which is unacceptable.
In my world, there are two types of flip-floppers: those who flip-flop with every changing breeze, and those who flip-flop according to experience. I would classify Barack Obama as the breezy flip-flopper, only knowing which way to turn when the latest polls come in. You, Mr. Simon, strike me as the flip-flopper of experience, a process known in some circles as “growing and maturing”.
The question is not “are you a flip-flopper?” but “are you a hypocrite?” People forgive changes of mind but we recognize when someone flip-flops for political expediency. There is a difference.
Nice Lennon quote. But as Lennon proved, death is also what happens when you’re making other plans.
I’d say there’s a tolerance range for flip-flopping. How much is acceptable? 15%? 20%? Is Romney over that line? Maybe. Is Gingrich? Maybe. At a certain point, the FF tolerance gauge goes haywire and you realize that nothing the pol says can be believed. At that point you can’t trust them, but you can make certain assumptions about the balance of forces. Could we depend on Romney to help repeal ObamaCare even though that would involve an implicit repudiation of RomneyCare? Probably, if the balance of forces were aligned. If not, though … could Romney flip-flop? I’d say yes.
So there are two types of flip-flops, 1. Did he change his position because his principles changed? or 2. Did he change his position because his principle is to get elected and he needed a position that would get the most votes? The 1st would get us a Leader that knew where he was going, and could Lead us there, the 2nd would have his principle satisfied by getting elected and so could Lead us nowhere as he had already arrived. In case you were wondering, Romney is the second.
You are not a flip-flopper, weren’t one even when you changed from M&Ms to Raisinettes; certainly not when you left the Left. A fish out of water flip-flops mindlessly. Reasoned change of opinion or objective is an indicator of wisdom and essential to progress. I reject your “confession” and shall continue to regard you as a wise man, even though I do not understand your reluctance to identify Obama as a Socialist.
How about the positions they do NOT change?
Mandatory healthcare in MA, mandatory innoculations (w/opt out, and illegals getting tuition asst better than citizens in TX. It is not a states rights issue!!
How can someone calling themselves a republican-conservative-small gov guy even entertain thoughts like that to begin with? It is a premonition of things to come; Newt, Perry and Mitt are all big government republicans, but of course THEY will make it run better. Just like todays socialists just think Stalin just didn’t do it smart enough but Barack will.
If Mitt and Rick passed those bills because of veto proof majorities that shoved it down their throats is one thing but to introduce it and then see it through to passage is another.
WARNING Will Robinson, Warning!!!
The reason we can’t have a flip-flopper in the white house is that there will be non stop pressure from the MSM and elites to make liberal Policy. Therefore we need a President who has solid conservative instincts and can stand firm in the midst of a barrage of liberal influencing.
There will be absolutely no one there to remind the president what conservatism is, once he’s in the white house. So he HAS to know himself. That’s why Gingrich’s commercial about Global warming is a problem and Romney’s health care law. It is a telltale sign that they can’t distinguish themselves. And if they can’t distinguish themselves. What happens, when they become president? “No children left behind” is what happens. Lax border control is what happens. TARP is what happens.
Dear JL:
The problem I see is that we are already so entrenched in Socialist ‘entitlement’ type policies in this country that bringing a real, hard-core conservative as a front-runner would be disastrous because 0bammy would win simply because the ‘austerity’ conservative angle would scare the crap out of people who are on the ‘dole’.
The only way we can turn this country around is probably going to be slow and painful and maybe not even in our own lifetime and it will require a lot of wobbly Repubs to eventually steer the ship straight (if it’s even possible at this point).
The problem I observe with most politics (on either side of the aisle) is that people want to protect their own a** first [human nature], so, you end up with a bunch of people posturing for approval and lying to get there without doing a damned thing GOOD for this country or her people.
Politicians and Car Salesmen aren’t too far apart in ideology except the car salesmen wants to sell you a vehicle and the politician is trying trying to sell himself.
Cloward/Piven should be patting themselves on the back about now.
Our country is divided.
Sad.
It took Obama 3 years to increase the budget with 40%.
Slow is not gonna cut it. What you are supposing is to bring a knife to a nuclear war. You have already lost.
And I want to challenge the idea that in order to win elections, you have to be moderate. Being conservative is not what makes republicans lose elections. Lack of charisma is what makes republicans lose elections. The so called independents are not in the middle of political spectrum. They are NOWHERE on the political spectrum. They are apolitical. They don’t care if you are right or left. They look for competence and charisma. They’ll vote for any kind of policy, if the guy advocating it looks confident, competent and shakes your hand with a firm grip, direct eye contact and a big smile.
The moderates that are right smack in the middle of the political parties is a tiny group of around 5%. The rest of the independents 25% are apolitical. And if you are not charismatic, they’ll vote for the other guy.
Don Imus is a good example of an independent. He can vote both Democrat and Republican. He’s looking for competence and charisma. That’s how 25% of the population thinks.
Both Reagan and Obama won elections and neither of them were moderates. MacCain was a moderate and he lost against a radical left wing Democrat.
Hmmmmmm. Interesting observation but Jimmeh Carteh didn’t have “charisma” nor did some other presidents from the past.
I s’pose with modern technology and television that ‘charisma’ helps but I don’t think ‘charisma’ is all that is needed for votes. Sure, 0blammo managed it because people were sick of BOOOOSH, but, that didn’t turn out too well and hopefully people have learned from their insipid idiocy.
Wishful thinking…I know…
Now who was carters opponent? Do you think Ford was charismatic? If both candidates are equally uncharismatic it obviously doesn’t matter.
My main point is to challenge the idea of the centrist independent. Most independents are apolitical. I know it’s hard to believe for a political person, but they are simply not into the hole left/right thing. They look at other attributes like competence, charm, likability etc. Occasionally they will take interest in issues. But they look at each issue separately and not as part of an ideology and their opinions are very flimsy and can change wildly from minute to minute.
The senators from the sub committee can be used as a good example to point out how this works. They didn’t reach an agreement. Each of the senators had strong political reasons for letting this fail. The so called independent voters on the other hand will find it unacceptable. They don’t care about the politics. The job was to find a compromise and they failed. And that makes them incompetent. So this is gonna cost them dearly with independent voters.
Anyone who doesn’t flip occasionally, simply is not thinking. I have flipped and flopped many times over the years on the question of capitol punishment, abortion, and just about every other “big” issue. Unfortunately (or fortunately) life experiences don’t come to you in an instant. They take, well, a lifetime to accumulate, and many of them have a deep impact on our decision making process.
Put another way, most everyone knows that, in the eyes of the law, ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, most don’t know that “ignorance of the fact” is an acceptable excuse, and there are many facts that have a direct bearing on our thoughts and actions.
As a student of history and the law I came to appreciate and respect the Constitution at an earlier age than most. Thus, I was guided into the conservative line of opinion most of my life. However, I am also a pragmatist and have been a registered Republican and Democrat alternately. I simply wanted to vote in the primary elections of the party that dominated politics where I lived at the time. It had nothing to do with my political philosophy. I felt that members of both parties respected the Constitution equally. I no longer find that to be true. My life experience has shown me new facts and I can no longer flip to the Democratic party regardless of my pragmatism or their dominance where I might live…
Mr. Simon,
I think you are conflating two unrelated concepts. Changing one’s mind (aka Flip-Flopping) can be an act of principle and deep conviction, as a person strives to better understand the world and his role in it. On the other hand, a person can be totally unprincipled by consistently taking a position they do not believe in, simply because it is profitable to do so.
The problem with Flip-Flopping is when changes in personal incentives occur between the Flip and the Flop. Converting to another religion, Catholicism for example, can be a beautiful exploration of faith. But when it happens the day after your wealthy, gravely ill grandmother announces that she will only put Catholics in her will, leads to the suspicion that the conversion is insincere.
This is why many voters have a problem with Flip-Flopping politicians. It’s not that they Flip their positions, it’s that they always seem to Flop towards the path of least electoral resistance.
But, how do you discern for certain that a politician is flip-flopping for profit/gain/ego/power/votes vs. one who truly changed their ideological position?
Great post btw.
Make a list of all the position changes and score whether each was in the politically easy direction as +1 or the political hard direction as -1. If the flip flops were all due to sincere change of mind, the total should be near zero. If 20 changes have the net easy/hard at +18, you can be pretty sure you’re looking at a serial panderer. The tables in the back of an introductory statistics textbook could quantify the probability. Or his name is Mitt.
HA! Excellent!
Kent that is why I like Mitt, he is a politician and he will do what he needs to in order to get elected, once ekected he represents all of us, not just white, straight right wing christians. he was a governor for the entire state and he will be a resident for all the citizens of the USA, flip flop away Mitt, just keep your moral compass working, you have so far.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
attributed to John Maynard Keynes.
Roger, the facts changed, especially after the downfall of the USSR and after 9-11. Anyone who does not “flip-flop” (i.e. – change their mind) in the view of such radical changes of fact is, in fact, a fool.
And the facts continue to change, for example, the demographically imposed Islamic caliphate, all but completed in western Europe and well underway under foot, if I may.
Roger,amigo, you are one of those few that understands the need of dialectical tension. Thus you are looking for dynamic balance. Your trying to avoid the extremes. Hence, you are aiming for moderation (that nothing has to do with weakness), and is what we need so much in this world, where, as in one of my rock compositions (“Oh What a Cambalache World”), I have it, “The extremes keep on feeding on each other, we cannot seem to reach a peaceful balanceanywhere….” In a phrase, apreciado amigo, you have incarnated Albert Camus´ L´Homme Révolté: ¡Felicidades!
In the balance between life and death, we can find the dynamic balance where those who are the least able to defend themselves are those who should be sacrificed so others may live.
In the balance between prosperity and poverty, what we need is to stamp down the productive so less wealth is available in the world while simultaneously transferring wealth to the non-productive so they may remain non-productive.
In the balance between virtue and vice, we should work to attack the virtuous and prevent them from sanctioning them and reducing the amount of evil done.
We know the world can only hold a certain number of humans, the Malthusians told us so, so aborting children is the middle ground between a culture of life and one of death. it is the only way.
We also know that the world has limited resources, because the Malthusians told us so, so, we not only have to abort the next generation, we have to make as many of them unproductive as possible, if only we could get them back to the lifestyle of the dark ages, the world would be saved.
The best way to save our world is to make it hardly worth living in. We need lots of rapes, murders, assaults, robberies, drug abuse and arson to make the thought of bringing another life into the world a hard decision, more likely to be a choice of not. This adds to the need for the unproductive, but necessary jobs of police, firefighters and emergency room personnel, if only we could get down to about three of those for every productive person!
The middle, it is where the good of all lies!
Thus by interpreting only the negative of this you have shown your extreme side and have tragicomically missed the point.
I do not think that is the best criteria for determining if the flip-flop should be counted negatively against the person. While moving in your direction is great, if it is just a pander to get your vote, and no true growth has happened to honestly convert the person towards your direction, that person will flap in the wind and go against you the first opportunity that it is in their political interest.
If the person cannot point to a plausible event or argument that changed their mind, then that change of mind is far more than just simply suspect, but should be seen as more likely a nefarious activity intended to put someone with an opposing view into office to accomplish the opposite of what is wanted by the voter.
I’m sorry, but that was one of the most intellectually vapid posts I’ve seen on this site, especially the ending. It’s one thing to say that well, yes, people change their mind, especially with earned life experience. It’s another to say that the test of opinion change is if it’s then in-line with out own thoughts and beliefs. This is how Obama got elected. He presented as a centrist democrat, even though his record was pure progressive. He also presented as a get-things-done leader, even though the vast majority of his voting as a senator was ‘present’. So much for committed to the process.
So, I don’t know what the point Mr. Simon was trying to make is, but he made a strong statement about how the independants chose their candidate in the last election, and possibly a prediction for 2012. (sigh…)
When caught in a flip-flop, I just repeat the words of the immortal Rhett Butler:
“I said too damn many things.”
It works even if the name isn’t Scarlett.
Good piece. I appreciate Kathryn’s (@ #30) comment, as well, although I would nuance that even more. There likely are situations where a leader adapts his position for reasons of political expediency. But there may be situations where one can appreciate even that because that is what might be required to survive/maintain power. It seems to me this is all a very slippery slope, one that a person can get lost on, changing their mind too often with the going trends or polls, having their vision and passion morph into a desire to attain and maintain power at all cost. I think Mr. Simon has it right when he basically suggests we need to keep our eye on the big picture and decide what is reasonable enough. That is a sane and much-needed message at a time when politics and political writing is highly polarized.
I used to be indecisive but now I’m not so sure
ROTFL!
I only flip-flop when I’m not wearing a bra.
For a perfect illustration of “flip-flopping” in progress, take the Google Earth view of the Obama Regime; It’s been flipping everything of protocol and policy since day one, and it’s flopping on its derrière.
A refreshing and, at the same time, disturbing reminder that we are, after all, only human. Question is how does one select the candidate most likely to stop flipping and flopping after he or she fools, er, convinces enough of the confused, ignorant masses (i.e., most of us) to “pull the lever” in their favor?
Obama has proven that he excels at this “sport” of political hocus pocus, flipping and flopping like a fish out of water and doing it with style and panache while his detractors are successfully portrayed as racists and obstructionists. And a fawning, pseudo intellectual, self aggrandizing media pats itself on the back for its “brilliant insightful commentary” on the political scene. Ignorance is bliss but sometimes dangerous.
America and the Western world remain in deep doo doo.
Yes, everyone knows this is so.
But it is the excuse used to EXCOMMUNCATE one and only one candidate from the Republican party… it is actually his religious hereticals that are behind the excommunication… but one can’t speak the truth in politics now, can one?
So the excuse for excommunication is Flip-Flop TO a more conservative position.
Flip flop to whatever Freddie May, the Insurance industry, or the Cap and Trade folks will pay you to promote and that is in perfect keeping with the party values… as long as your sex addiction is kept hidden until after the Primary…
This party has lost it’s soul. It has flip flopped beyond redemption.
Let the party die it’s chosen death. The hypocrisy has been revealed and the Republican Party is not worth saving.
I come from a very liberal family. My not long ago deceased uncle was a major player in the AFL-CIO. He was considered an elder statesmen in Texas Democrat politics. He marched with Caesar Chavez and was on first name basis with former Democrat Texas governor Ann Richards. I grew up around all this.
In college I began to change. I used to think of myself as a liberal Democrat. I morphed. The finality came when Clinton wagged his finger at the nation on TV about not having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I even defended Clinton to my Rush Limbaugh listening boss. That is, until it was revealed he did have sexual relations and lied under oath about it.
Done. Transformation complete. I am conservative.
I guess I flipped-flopped. Thing is, though, I didn’t have folks around me that advised a President on ideas and policies that I put into place (Romney). I don’t defend the notions I once held other than to say I was misguided and not truly aware.
That is my reservation with Romney. He doesn’t part with his past; he defends it. Moreover, he has people that advices the federal government on the very thing that gives conservatives major pause.
Will I vote for Romney if he is the Republican candidate? Yes, but like I did with McCain, it was with major reservation and holding of breath.
What I fear is that Romney will be just Democrat-lite. I don’t want Democrat-lite. I want a conservative Republican. I want a difference, not a continuation of the same just on a smaller scale!
Sigh.
Better to have flopped than never to have flipped at all.
Changing one’s mind as we go through a process of gathering more information is an intellectual right, however there is a very clear line where matters of PRINCIPLE are non-negotiable. I am not speaking of a choice between which deficit financed budget is more palatable to one’s own constituency be they conservative or liberal.
I AM speaking of, for instance, the PRINCIPLE that theft is wrong. There is no time, situation, or scenario when you will find be found to have commissioned a “justifiable theft”.
With blatant disregard, we are daily passing on debt we cannot by any reasonable means repay to our unborn future generations who have no voice or roll in these obligations other than payment.
That is THEFT and that is WRONG! Furthermore, looking at the global debt crises, it is an act of inter -generational global suicide upon our species! It is true psychotic behavior on a scale which makes the Holocaust look more like a temporary FLIP-FLOP of good judgment for some German citizens on their nation’s policies.
With blatent disregard, we are daily passing on debt we cannot by any reasaonable means repay to our unborn future generations who have no voice or roll in these obligations other than payment.
That is THEFT! That is WRONG! Furthermore, it is suicidal! It is true psychotic behavior on a scale much larger than that of the hollocost !
I just don’t understand what all you Romney bashers are complaining about, nor do I understand your failure to recognize that 4 years ago Romney was considered the conservative of the bunch of candidates. He is a Republican who is/was a very successful businessman and became the Republican governor of probably the most democrat state in the nation. As such, in order to govern, he had to bend some, but, like Regean, I don’t believe he sacrificed his core principles in the process. He (Romney) is a man of ethics and of good moral character; he is smart, articulate, knowledgable, even tempered and presidential in bearing. What is so wrong with these attributes that would cause some not to vote for him because he “flip-flopped” – changed his position – on certain issues. Makes no sense whatsoever!
I’ve been quoting Hunt For Red October alot: “I’m a politician, when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops.” Flip or flop, the guy who beats Obama gets my lollipops then we go back to holding their feet to the fire. Cuz that’s when the flip/flop matters. I mean, do you think the Dems are thrilled with Obama?