Shouldn't we reward flip-flopping?

Politics & Elections
1

I guess I am biased because I’m a notorious flip-flopper nowadays, and I try to change my opinion as often as possible. I’ve changed my mind on a vast amount of issues, sometimes more than once or twice. My main driving force here is that I want to be right, so if I suddenly find out that I’m not, I change my opinion. Hopefully I will have to do this less and less over time, as I get less ignorant, but I don’t expect it ever to stop. Of course that is different in intent to changing your opinion because you want to agree with other people, ie: populism, but the effect is the same.

Personally I admire people who do change their mind, and tend to give them more credit for their opinion. For me it seems logical that if you used to believe X and now believe Y, there’s a likelihood that position Y is more accurate since you’ve obviously had to overcome some obstacles (social or intellectual) to arrive at it. It is often the result of getting more information, new perspectives or added experience. If I encounter someone who used to agree with me on something that has changed his or her mind, I am much more likely to take time and re-evaluate my own position and the arguments more thoroughly than if it’s an encounter with someone who has always had the opposite opinion to mine. “I used to belive what you do, but now I’ve changed my mind…” is actually a strong argument for me.

But flip-flopping is usually not rewarded, quite the opposite. I’ve gotten comments about how it makes it harder to know where i stand on issues, which can be a problem for someone who is working with me. Predictability is an attractive trait in someone you’re working with. It is also often painted as being “weak” rather than being flexible, intelligent or honest. “Sticking to your guns” has a positive meaning, whereas “Changing your mind” has not.

This usually comes up more during election cycles where a common attack on someone is that he or she is a flip-flopper. If the cause of the flip-flop is populism, I think that critisism is right, but then it should be about how populism is wrong. Especially since integrity is an important trait in a leader. But if the flip-flop is caused by a true change of mind, I not only think it shouldn’t be critisised, but celebrated.

To me the problem isn’t that people change their mind too often, it is that they don’t change their mind often enough. And if we constantly penalise people for doing it, we’re creating a political enviroment where those who are successful are the ones that are either intellectually inflexible (nicer words for stupid) or lack integrity (basically willing to support a cause they believe is wrong).

I want intelligent people with integrity for leaders, but my take on the situation is that we are moving in another direction. Are we? Do we want to? What can be done about it if not?

I also think the same holds somewhat true for this board. That is frustrating, because it is filled with intelligent people and is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. But I don’t think we haven’t managed to create an enviroment where it is easy to move to a less ignorant position.

2

When it comes to politics, it doesn’t matter what position the opponent takes, only that the opponent’s position is wrong. If the opponent takes a side different than yours on a subject, her/his position is wrong. If the opponent changes her/his mind on that subject she/he is indecisive and weak. Ifv on that particular subject the opponent already agrees with you, than she/he is attempting to pander to those supporting your own sincerely held position. Whether or not the opponent is doing something good or not is totally beside the point-the opponent must be defeated.

3

[Modding]
Moved to Elections from Great Debates. I could flip-flop and move it back, but…
[/Modding]

Politicians who change their minds on an issue are often accused of flip-flopping by their opponents, but changing your mind and flip-flopping are not the same in practice. Flip-flopping is changing your position based on whatever is electorally advantageous to you at that moment, often without acknowledging you’ve changed your position at all. The implication of the charge is that voters can’t trust you because you may abandon your campaign promises and you’ll do whatever you think 51 percent of the people want you to do instead of what’s best. People who’ve changed their minds shouldn’t be afraid to say they’ve done so and explain why.

Then you may be doing it right. :wink:

Of course there is always a popular element in politics: you do need people to vote for you and support your agenda or you can’t succeed in the long term. But you get into trouble if people start to think there is no connection between your words and your deeds. That means there is little reason for people to vote for you: you’ll promise one set of policies if that’s popular and then do something else if that looks more popular.

4

I think you put that very succinctly, and what you just said is the reason I posted this. So I guess you agree on the situation, but do you think it is a problem, and if so, what can or should be done?

5

I think there’s a few flavors of flip-flopping, and we ought to view them differently:

  1. Recognition that a sincerely held belief is no longer supportable. I think of older Southern politicians who once held racist views, and have apologized for them.

  2. Being persuaded by new, convincing evidence. A politician may have thought that the use of a nuclear power source on a NASA satellite would pose a grave risk to the population if the launch failed, but has been assured that the fears are unfounded.

  3. Positions that change as the mood of the people change. A congressman supports bringing government projects to his home district one day, and the next day rails against pork-barrel politics and advocates a ban on earmarks. As Marley23 noted, this congressman might deny that his position has changed at all.

In general, I think the public should respect politicians in the first scenario, who simply have a change of heart on an important matter.

In the second scenario, I’d say it is generally good that people are open to listening to new evidence. However, if the record shows that someone has a pattern of leaping to conclusions, and then have to walk back to reality time and time again, we would be right to question their judgment.

In the last example, there’s something to be said for a politician who listens to the people, but in general, I think it is better for the public to know where someone stands on the issues. If that stand doesn’t fit with the public, perhaps they should elect someone else.

Now, there’s a hell of a lot of judgment and opinion over whether a person’s change in views might be because of any of those scenarios, or perhaps even a mixture of them. I can’t fault someone that much for having a change of heart, but I do have less acceptance of someone who is constantly being corrected or who is only telling me what I want to hear.

6

Short of teaching children from birth the notion that the ends do not justify the means, there is absolutely nothing you can do.

7

FYI: There was a thread about this back in December, that would be a good starting point.

8

I respect your decision, and you may be right to move it here. My intent was to get a general discussing on the nature of changing ones mind and how it functions in the context of society, not really election specific. If you think that the discussion will be better served by having it in this forum instead, I don’t mind, I guess I just wanted to point out that it was a conscious decision to start it in GD rather than this sub-forum, but now I might be changing my mind.

I guess that is a question of how you should flip-flop, rather than if you should. Although it is tempting to claim that you haven’t changed but rather always held the ‘correct’ position, that negates the “integrity and honesty award”. So why do people do it? Could it be because of the stigma attached to the flip?

From my perspective of personal integrity and intellectual honesty, yes. But from the perspective of helping others by being consistent and predictable, thus making it easier for them to work with me, no.

Some spontaneus thoughts rather than structured arguments:

  1. Couldn’t you say that it will make you predictable in a way? You know that the person will do whatever is most popular, rather than what the person said previously.

  2. You could also argue that it is more democratic-

  3. My view of democracy has evolved as a result of holding elected office for 6 years. Nowadays I am much more trusting and willing to delegate the responsibility. I don’t expect the people I vote for to do what I want, but rather make the decision they think is right after assessing the situation properly. So nowadays I don’t have a problem if someone I voted for does something I don’t agree with. My first instinct now is that I could very well be wrong and this person could be right. So depending on how much I care about the subject I will either investigate and re-evaluate, just assume that the person knows more than me, or let it slip.

This happened a few months ago when our party leader, who I supported in the election, published an article for a policy I didn’t agree with. Some parlimentarians immediatly critisised him, and I ended up scolding them for doing so even though I agreed with them at the time. After re-evaluating it I now agree with the policy he proposed.

9

I would add a 4th one. Changing a stance based on the current audience a politician is in front of.

  1. A famous example is George Wallace who switched from “segregation forever” to a fairly moderate reform governor.

  2. An example of this would be John Kerry who switched positions on the Iraq war from for to against and new evidence came in. He was excoriated at the 2004 GOP convention for flip flopping. The Republicans passed out flip flop shoes to every delegate.

  3. Somewhat trivial, "normal political hypocrisy.

  4. Mitt Romney is the greatest political flip flopper I’ve ever heard of. His stance on abortion may be a type 1 switch, but all the other switches are of a finger to the political wind variety, as far as I’m concerned.

10

I don’t think your statement is supported by facts, but rather an expression of resentment of the situation. Or it depends on what you mean by “nothing you can do”. If you mean that you don’t think it is likely to happen in the forseeable future and that I personally can’t do much to influence the outcome, you may well be right. But considering what we as a society has the potential of doing, it can not be impossible per se. It doesn’t break the laws of physics.

I’m not saying that you have to come up with a plan for a solution (not yet at least), but it seems that you agree that the current situation is suboptimal, so we could discuss what the situation actually is, why it is, and what could at least theoretically be done.

Lately, in accordance with the Ghandi quote “Be the change that you wish to see in the world”, I’ve tried to become better at two things in order to influence my enviroment. First to better at it myself (especially not dismissing input because of the person behind it), second by making it easier for people I discuss with to change their mind. That means being more respectful and really trying to not make discussions into arguments or conflicts. But also to try to shape the interaction so that there is an easy way for the person to agree with me without “losing face”.

It’s been very positive result-wise so far. The last year and a half where I have really applied myself to this has been very successful. Not only have it helped me develop more well founded positions, it has also resulted in massive majorities for issues that could easily have been very conflicted, and that could have ended up with a minimal majority or even a loss. It also creates a positive feedback loop making it easier and easier, since you build positive influence and rapport.

11

To some extent. But like I said, flip-flopping isn’t the same as changing your mind. It’s a particular way of changing your political position.

Changes in public opinion can be unpredictable.

Lousy argument. The people who created modern representative democracy would have strenuously rejected this claim.

And that’s fine. But how can you trust their ability to assess a situation if the only thing you know about them is that they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear?

I think it’s fine to trust the judgment of the people you vote for, but there need to be limits to that trust or the system doesn’t really work.

I can’t help thinking that perhaps this means you’re alienating a lot of people: you’re criticizing people you agree with (and holding off of criticism of one person) and perhaps also changing your position. How does the public feel about all that?

He’s one of the most active. I’m not sure he’s the best.

12

To me, the issue is that in a Republic, we’re trying to elect somebody who will vote the way we expect him to: a known stance, a predictable pattern. With a flip-flopper (or even somebody who changes his mind all the time), we don’t get that. We elect somebody and have no idea how he’s going to vote on anything, and that’s not the idea, here.

13

IMHO one problem is that people treat politics like sporting events, and one who switches teams too often, or at all, is seen as a phony and not a true fan (faithful).

If Romney suddenly came out and said “You know, I was wrong about the ACA. I have studied the numbers and I have changed my position and now support it. Let me explain what I see now and why this is a good thing for our nation…”, aside from his prior record of changing positions like dirty diapers, no one would really take him seriously any more (than he already is). People do not want data and discussion, they want sound bytes that taste good and are satisfying to their dearly held beliefs. Thinking about stuff is too hard and takes too much time and energy. When presented with strong evidence, people will resist accepting it if it is contrary to their position - they do not want to be “wrong”, even if it turns out they are.

Personally, I think someone who changes their mind on something probably examined all sides and came to a conclusion by thinking about it, which is good. People are always welcome to their own views, as long as they agree with mine.:stuck_out_tongue:

14

But would you dump the candidate you are already supporting for the one that changed her/his mind and now agrees with you? If not, then the candidate has taken a net loss in votes.

15

If I understand you correctly, it’s a derogatery term to describe a more specific context for the change of mind. In hindsight I should perhaps have used the phrase more sparingly then.

Yes I was only arguing that it would be another form of predictability, correlating to another factor. A weather wane is unpredictable or predictable depending on what factor you use to judge it.

Lousy argument if that was the only definition of democracy. To many people and some political movements it would be considered more in line with what they think democracy is or should be, so I think the argument is valid in that perspective.

I think you made a connection here that I did not intend for. My expectation of the elected officials weren’t really related to the discussion on populism, so this argument of yours turned out to be an unintended strawman I think. I don’t vote for populists, on the contrary.

Of course. Blind trust isn’t optimal, but I also think that there are some borderline cases or paranoia and a lot of unwarrented suspicion. Most politicians I know, and I know a lot, are regular people and the common trait is really just a bigger interest in how society works, and being more engaged.

It’s polarising. People tend to either like or dislike it/me a lot. This was an internal event though, my outward perception is more along the lines of eccentric and controversial. Nobody has ever accused me of being a populist though.

My analysis is that it is the result of two things:

  1. A very pragmatical and problem-solving character
  2. Full immersion in the context

Basically he’s lacking a “moral compass” and gets too caught up trying to play the game right rather than do what IS right.

16

I would have to examine the reasons for the changed position. Perhaps the candidate is basing their view on some new data that I ws unaware of. I would not automatically discount them, no. I would then look at positions on other issues important to me. You are right, tho, switching positions probably causes more loss than gain in politics.

17

We’re not arguing about the definition of democracy. You said that perhaps this kind of flip-flopping - always aligning yourself with the majority of the public no matter what - was “more democratic” than trying to follow a set policy. And I’m saying that in addition to making for bad governance, I don’t think many people would agree that’s “more democratic” as opposed to, say, lacking in ideas or principles. And yes, the founders of modern representative democracy supported the “representative” part precisely because they didn’t trust the opinions of the masses and felt the government should be made up of people who would say no to the public when it was called for.

I’ll agree with that.

It’s not a moral compass issue: he’s just saying whatever he thinks will get votes. His national campaign is based on pretty much the opposite of everything he said and did when he actually held elective office.

I think a lot of people understand his opposition to the ACA is not sincere.

18

What about the politician who is against policy A at the national level but recognizes that he is trying to represent a constituency that is solidly pro-A? Would it be a flip-flop for him to acknowledge the importance of policy A to his constituents and promise to fight for it even though he has serious reservations about the impact of the policy at a larger scale?

In fact is it a bad thing for a politician to promise to represent his district irrespective of his own beliefs?

19

The term “flip-flop” does not refer to a sincere change of opinion about an issue on the basis of new information or further contemplation. It refers to cynically changing one’s stated position in order to pander to one’s audience.

20

A Politician will flip flop for political points and expediency. It takes a Statesman to modify or change a position after sober second thought.

So for me, it’s really not the act of taking an alternative position, it’s all about the motiviation and conviction to sustain the argument for change.