Tuesday, 07.08.08
In Defense of Flip-Flopping
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
This election's newest story is also the oldest. A flip-flop on Iraq? Didn't we do this one four years ago? Well it turns out the war didn't end, and now there's another presidential election coming up, and more complicated foreign policy stuff on which the candidates need to give speeches and take positions. So here we go again: Barack Obama is accused of changing his position. Last Thursday he said he would "continue to refine" his stance on troop withdrawal as new evidence comes in. John McCain, no doubt attempting to summon the specter of John Kerry, says the shift makes Obama unfit to lead.
Obama's supporters have had two responses to the flip-flop charge. First, they say he didn't actually change his position: he's always said he'd listen to commanders in the field. Second, they argue that McCain has changed his position on a ton of issues (taxation, immigration, religion, torture, energy, the environment and -- yes yes -- Iraq) and a swooning media tends to give him a free pass. I'm fairly sympathetic to these responses, but would like to add a third: more often than not, flip-flopping stories are an incredibly stupid way to judge a candidate.
This is for three reasons. First, flip-flop stories are silly because they elevate the process of politics over the substance of politics -- that is, they make a big deal out of the mere fact that decisions are being made and positions are being changed without actually taking account of justifications and intentions. The simplest question -- does John Q. Politician's position today differ from at some point in the past? -- is asked at the expense of a whole raft of questions that are far more interesting and important. (Why is the position different, and which position is better?) Taken to its logical conclusion, the elevation of process would open up anything to criticism. Barack Obama recently quit smoking: How can we let this man's shameless reversals go unchallenged?
McCain's campaign actually displays this problem quite nicely by offering two criticisms of Obama's "refinements" that are, if not logically incompatible, at least temperamentally inconsistent. On one side of the bus they're saying it is a bad thing Obama shifted his stance on withdrawal. (McCain spokesman Brian Rogers: "Today, Barack Obama reversed [his] position, proving once again that his words do not matter.") But on the other side they're saying it's a good thing Obama changed his position, because, happily, it's the one McCain has advocated all along. (Rogers again: "we would like to congratulate [Obama] for accepting John McCain's position on this critical national security issue.") I don't understand why the McCain campaign gets to have it both ways. How can it be a bad thing if Obama has adopted a good position? Or, alternately, how could Obama have accepted a new position if his words "do not matter"?
I suppose they might say that process can be a window into substance -- sure, Obama has the right position now, but his public shift reveals a deep and abiding character flaw that is of genuine, substantive importance. But this response teases out the second problem with most flip-flop stories: they seem to assume that the public statements of a politician running for office are an unoccluded window into his beliefs. They aren't. There is a slightly interesting chicken-and-egg question here -- which came first, the gullible voters or the pandering politicians? -- but no one should dispute that almost every politician, whether he's defending a past position or decrying it, does so with half an eye toward winning over more than half the electorate.
And it does not seem obvious to me that a politician who changes public positions has less "character" than one who avoids changing positions long after the evidence has turned against him merely to avoid the appearance of being a softie. One kind of politician panders to the public's appetite for particular policy positions. The other panders to the public's appetite for politicians who can avoid the appearance of pandering. The pandering can always cut in both directions.
Of course, the other side of this coin is that principles can cut in both directions too, which is the third reason why flip-flop stories are stupid. Changing your mind reveals no shameful lack of principle if one of your guiding principles is "be amenable to new evidence." Indeed, the choice is often not between principles and pandering but between two kinds of principle: one that says commitments are worth keeping (consequences be damned), and one that says commitments are only as good as the latest evidence. One deeply absorbed lesson of the Bush presidency is that the former kind of principle is not necessarily the more desirable.
I'll take the open-mindedness any day of the week. But you can't criticize me if I change my mind.
New Obama, old politicsIn a scathing editorial, a "distressed" New York Times blasts Obama's move to the center as a return to "old political games." |
Reality checkDenouncing Obama's shift on FISA, Glenn Greenwarld tries to wake people up to "why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks." |
View from the rightFred Barnes argues that Obama's shift to the center is nothing more than savvy political positioning that will not commit him to any new positions. |
Straight talkGeorge Packer argues that Barack Obama must speak more candidly about his evolving plans for withdrawal from Iraq. |
A vast centrist conspiracyAndy Borowitz raises the shocking possibility that Barack Obama is simply trying to win the election. |
(12)
I'm all for politicians changing their positions to fit reality; I think both McCain and Obama have done it. One of the crucial differences between the two, however, is that Obama inevitably claims that his positions have been perfectly consistent. He downright INSISTS on it, actually, even though it's demonstrably false.
I also think it is understandable that steadfastness is overvalued somewhat in the office of the Presidency. No person in the world is subject to as many competing, virulent interests. An indecisive person simply cannot function adequately when flanked by tremendous pressure from all sides.
So, while it's true that flip-flopping is sometimes simple intelligence and humility, it usually isn't, and I daresay inflexibility is often a lesser transgression than utter mutability.
Thank you for this writing this. It should be required reading for all the news outlets in the country. Particularly for MSNBC, FOX, and CNN...who seem to hyperventilate everytime a candidate is accused of "flip flopping" ..the horror!
People saw that this charge worked so well against John Kerry in 2004 that this has become an over-used cliche. Media figures and other politicians are now describing a single change as a "flip flop" - but think about the word for a second. A single change is just a flip.
As it was originally used against Kerry, "flip flopping" meant spasmodically changing one's position back and forth. Setting aside the merits of this criticism, the term charged that Kerry was constantly changing his position back and forth depending on whom he was talking to.
Today, the term has lost its original meaning and now just means someone has changed once. The simple follow up should be, "What caused you to change your position?" And the onus should be on the politician to explain.
Emerson comes to mind whenever I hear charges of flip-flopping
"A foolish consitancy is the hobgoblin of little minds; today say what today speaks in hard words, and tomorrow say what tomorrow means in hard words." The rest of the quote is known by the whole world and needs no elaboration.
What rationalization! The majority of the left wing intelligentsia thirst for a win, they are willing to give firmament to the words the Obama propagandists utter. Only Ariana Huffington--of all people cries foul--while the McCain propaganda machine remains innocuously silent.
I tell you if this is not a Democratic year there will never be one.
Nonetheless, the fact remains: From Free Trade to a quick pull out of Iraq. From Public Finance Reform to meeting Dictators without preconditions. Obama changes positions, not to benefit the Country, but to benefit himself.
And if you think I get joy in stating this you are wrong. My joy comes in seeing all those uneducated anti-globalization fanatics having to bite their tongue on Free Trade because their Vicar does not need them any more.
Back in the Ohio primary Obama said: "One million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio. And yet, 10 years after NAFTA passed, Sen. Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."
But now that the general election looms Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. "I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama says. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."
At least for all people comprising 270 electoral votes.
This essay should be published on every op-ed page in every newspaper in the country.
There is a difference:
Changes of mind come with admitting the fact of it and an explanation of how it came about. Simple, easy, happens all the time, no big deal.
Flip-flops come with no explanation of the change and in extreme cases, the change itself, as obvious as it might be, is denied.
Maybe Obama figures nobody will notice. He might be right: Look at all the "journalists" pretending not to.
Punditish, this comment of yours is rather galling: "One of the crucial differences between the two, however, is that Obama inevitably claims that his positions have been perfectly consistent. He downright INSISTS on it, actually, even though it's demonstrably false." Hmm, really? As compared to McCain, who at least on two occasions has denied saying things (about his economic ignorance and about Hillary after she withdrew) that there was film of him saying?
And I really don't get exactly where Obama flipped-flopped, except perhaps FISA. He is still committed to a quick withdrawal in a way that McCain emphatically isn't. It was always clear that a plan for withdrawing troops couldn't be drawn up without the sort of collaboration with the military that only a president has access to. That this reality has been acknowledged, I do not find a bit bothersome.
Obviously, Obama is trying to stress positions of greater popularity and positions that cut against certain perceptions of him, such as the rightist smear that he is essentially a marxist, and an angry black one at that. All politicians run on their popular issues. Obama is a very savvy politician. We've seen evidence of that the last few weeks.
This is a complaint about the keyboard shortcut for previewing comments. It happens to also be the s shortcut for the view menu in Windows which I use to change the type size. (A neccessity when a columnist/blogger has used too small a type size and a Mac) Please use a different shortcut or give me a way to change type size on the page instead of by menu.
I HAVE WORKED FOR 40 YEARS TELL ME WHAT IS BETTER? I WANT YOUR JOB!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY HAVING ALL STUDENTS LEARN SPANISH? IS IT OUR COUNTRY'S SECOND LANGUAGE? WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE KOREAN, VIETNAMESE, AND OTHER LANGUAGES THAT ARE NOW SPOKEN IN BIG CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, THOSE AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR A SECOND LANGUAGE? ALL OF THE IMMIGRANTS THAT MIGRATE TO TEXAS ARE WORKING HERE TAKING JOBS FROM PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE AND ARE NOT PAYING TAXES, IS THAT FAIR? WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS MANY AMERICANS THAT ARE NOT PAYING TAXES NOW OR NEVER HAVE PAID ANY TAXES? YET THESE PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING AND GET PAID BIG BUCKS AND THE BENEFITS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO OFFER.
Obama, like Hillary, is a Socialist who will say anything the people want to hear to get into office. If the whim of the day is for NAFTA, well, let's back NAFTA. If it's against it - NAFTA should never have been passed. Same with backing his pastor, withdrawing troops, increasing or decreasing taxes and kissing babies. He's a chameleon, able to change to suit whatever group he's speaking to. Trouble is, as more of his words reach a larger audience, suddenly yesterday's audience is noticing that the words are different.
A president can't be all things to all people. A leader must take the hard road and make a stand, and draw the people to him/herself. That was the beauty of Reagan: he helped redefine the ideals of the country, rather than mold his words to existing thought. That's why conservatives love him, and why liberals hate him. Conservatives want a decisive, firm leader who says what he means and stays there. (And W, sadly, has changed a bit over the past 8 years.) Liberals want the opposite. They want whatever is fashionable, free, fun, loosey-goosey and will give them the most right now. "Tell me you care (whether you really do, or ever act like it or not, just tell me) and I'll vote for you."
Beautifully stated, and especially timely. Lately it seems intellectual curiosity and flexibility of thought are considered a weakness rather than a valuable asset, whereas holding steadfastly to a position despite overwhelming evidence of potential disaster is considered a sign of strength of character.
Posted by immortal | July 9, 2008 1:17 PM