Ran into this while making a Saturday morning pit run:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/algore.html
courtesy of Duck Duck Goose in this thread.
I was quite surprised by that CNN story, and wondered if any support/debunking could be provided by the denizens of GD.
Quite a few politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle have done flip-flops on the abortion issue, for the sake of expedience. On the GOP side, George Bush the elder was firmly pro-abortion and a strong advocate of birth control around the world (some fellow Congressmen jokingly nicknamed him “Rubbers” because he was so obsessed with sending condoms to the developing nations). Once he realized that a pro-abortion position would prevent him from ever getting the GOP nomination, he changed his mind.
Among Democrats, not only did Al Gore switch over from a die-hard anti-abortion position to being Planned Parenthood’s best friend, so did Dick Gephardt and even Jesse Jackson. Presumably, Gore and Gephardt realized that an anti-abortion Democrat had no hope of ever getting a Presidential nomination, and decided they’d rather switch than fight.
Not that I have any desire to defend Al Gore, but the reasons are obvious. The positions needed to win public office in Tennessee–from which Gore served as US Representative and US Senator–are not the same as those needed to win support among the much more liberal national Democratic base. Indeed, this year you could see the opinion of Tennessee on the “reinvented” Al Gore–the state went for Bush.
Of course, prior to Roe v. Wadeone of the most liberal abortion laws in the country was signed by then-California Governor Ronald Reagan. If you want consistency, you’re looking at the wrong profession.
It’s just that during the campaign many Republican ads emphasized repeatedly that Al Gore would make a bad president because he had no consistency in his positions, that he promised whatever the electorate wanted. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing I suppose, but I found it interesting that their assessment was fairly accurate. And now Astorian says that Bush Sr. did the same thing.
So much for the strong Republican moral ground, I suppose - I just find it bizaare that a person could completely change views like that.
In order to win, don’t you have to actually sound convincing? In order to do that, every time you change sides as a politician, do you actually convince yourself your new side is right?
Or are they purely cynical about the whole business?
Not to sound mean or anything, but did you live a sheltered life? 
Politics in a democracy that has rapid communications is synonymous with flux. In the last fifty years (at least) the purpose of holding public office has become not so much to serve the people as to get re-elected. Both sides flip-flop. If the Rapture happened tomorrow and all of the Religious Right were whisked from the Earth, the Republican Party would move its policies almost immediately to the center (or at least after the next election that they lost on a far conservative platform). The Democrats did this in 1992, when they saw that liberal Carter, liberal Mondale and liberal Dukakis could not make a dent in either Reagan or Bush’s numbers. Clinton is no liberal, despite what the loonies hanging off the right edge of the Republican bandwagon want people to believe. Gore is no liberal, despite his environment-friendly lip service. This is why he lost votes to Nader.
Politics is a slippery thing, and its practitioners strive to armor themselves in teflon so that no actual ideas will stick permanently.
Well actually… yes.
In Canada I was too young to vote, and anyway politics didn’t really enter much into an area where the next town was 6-8 hours drive away (Bella Coola to William’s Lake).
The Liberals never really changed their position much anyway - it seemed to me, anyway.
I just missed the last election’s excitement when I came to the States, and the president didn’t change anyway.
So yes, this is my first major election.
I know the Democrats have “drifted to the middle” but completely switching position on key issues of human rights and morality? Perhaps it is just me, but I would have to do a lot of studying and thinking before doing that. I just can’t visualize flipping an internal switch on issues like that based on poll numbers.
I hate it when I fail to reread what I post and end up using a word like “anyway” several times in a sentence.
argh! It just grates. I really wish we could it our own posts.
I don’t know if you’re familiar at all with US political history in general, but the Democrats have not only individually flip-flopped on issues of human rights and morality, both parties have gradually switched places on social issues since the beginning of the 20th Century.
The Republicans, when they first began, were the party of Lincoln. Republicans drove the movement for abolition of slavery and the equality of black and white. The Democrats were the Southern party…pro-slavery, pro-discriminatory laws, pro-segregation (the last one all the way up to the early 1960’s). By the 60’s, the Democratic Party platform flipped over to advocation of civil rights and the abolition of segregation. The Republicans didn’t switch to a party platform of pro-racism, but a lot of the disaffected Southern Democrats switched parties and became Republicans, which, combined with the very loud, very active anti-discrimination character of modern Democrats, makes the Repubs look sort of racist.
Evolution applies to politics as well. Unsuccessful survival strategies die via election losses. Successful strategies get used over and over until the political environment changes and new strategies must be discovered.
Yes, Gore has flipped on abortion, as have more than a few in the political realm. Jesse Jackson, one of the more prominent examples of this on the Democratic side, has already been mentioned.
However, I think Gore’s most dramatic flip-flop is on the issue of guns. I seem to recall that as a Senator from Tennessee, Gore was one of the consistent “A” grades that the NRA would give out. Now he is a solid “F.” And that’s only because “F” is the lowest grade possible.
I, too, have a hard time understanding how someone could pull a switch on issues such as this just for votes. This goes for Republicans as well as Democrats. I was never all that satisfied with Bush Sr., mainly because I didn’t feel he had deep convictions on many of the conservative values he supposedly espoused. Maybe he did have them, or came into them in an honest way, but he did not articulate this well enough to put my mind totally at ease.
I’d much rather have a politician say “This is what I believe, and I’ll still believe this no matter which way the political winds blow.” Too often we see “Hey, what do the polls say will sell the best this year.”
Let’s take the example of Gore and guns again. At some point you have to ask was he lying about his feelings back in Tennessee, or is he lying about them now? The two positions are mutually exclusive. The third option is that he has truly had a change of heart. This very well could be so, but how well has he really been able to convince anyone of this? I ask the Gore supporters on the board, Do you see Gore’s stance on guns as one of deep conviction, or one of political expediency? I’m just curious to see how he comes across to his fellow Democrats; I already know how he comes across to me.
Not that that matters. He could have any stance he wants, in theory, but instead act politically on what he feels represents the will of the people. Flip-floppin isn’t lying. You might note that many politicians do not flip-flop…and they don’t get votes. Chalk it up to majority stupidity, not lying bastards.
As I recall, Presidential Candidate Clinton* was caught a number of times talking out both sides of his mouth–he supported the war** in front of pro-war groups, and opposed the war when he spoke to anti-war groups./*
*Governor DeWitt Clinton of New York.
**The War of 1812.
***The election of 1812, DeWitt Clinton (Federalist) v. James Madison (Democratic-Republican).
****This ain’t a new phenomenon.
aynrandlover said:
What shall we call it, then? How 'bout “reinventing?”
Rather “ends justify the means” there, is it not?
So if the voters would just smarten up and vote for politicians who honestly advocate that which said voters find stupid, ridiculous, and just plain wrong, the poor politicians wouldn’t have to “flip-flop?” Sounds a lot like “look what you made me do!”
A bit on the gay question. Joey Lieberman did support the defence of marrige act (in 1996 (?) ). Not exactly a liberal track record. Oh yeah, and Clinton signed it… Does say something about the company Gore keeps.
Of course Gore still got the Human Rights Campaign endorsment. Bloody centrism…
One does the best with what one has.
And, as was pointed out, state elections are quite a different kettle of fish from national elections.
They’re all whores. 
Esprix