When did changing your mind become the next worst thing to murder?

Great Debates
1

There seems to be much made about whether Kerry changed his position on various topics of significance to this year’s election. The right accuses him of this like it’s somehow this unspeakable weakness that makes him unfit for the presidency. Kerry meanwhile protests that he’s never changed his mind about anything since he picked out his first baby rattle.

They’re talking about momentous issues, where decisions were made quickly, without perfect information, without a real understanding of what might happen, and often where the political realities of the day influenced the positions taken. Given all that, what I don’t get is why it’s supposed to be so bad to say “I made the best decision I could at the time based on imperfect knowledge. What I believe to be the best course of action NOW is ‘X’ and here’s why.”

I would have thought that an open mind and a willingness to admit and correct mistakes would be positive qualities.

I’m hoping this won’t turn into a bash-fest and get moved to the pit, but I’d be curious to hear some opinions. Is "flip-flopping bad? If so, why?

2

Expecting the Bush campaign to portray John Kerry’s voting record fairly is like expecting Michael Jackson to confess that he’s mutilated his face beyond all hope – no effing chance in Heck of that ever happening.

That said, the only time “flip-flopping” (and boy am I tired of hearing that term) is bad is if it’s done solely to win appreciation from others – e.g., you change your mind only because you’re trying to appease them, regardless of the facts or circumstances. Changing your mind based on new information or new circumstances is a good thing, and only an idiot would tenaciously stick to a position without reconsideration.

But it’s an election year, and the Republicans know they have nothing substantive to run on (the last thing they want now is to remind folks of how badly George W. Bush has screwed up in the last four years). With a hand that poor, the only move they have left is to drag out the distortions, lies, and “flip-flop” claims.

3

So true, rjung. Unfortunately, the masses don’t use that kind of logic even on a day to day basis, let alone when deciding who our fearless leader ought to be. I want someone who can bend and flex when new facets of the issues are revealed. To remain in the same mindset despite the changes is just stupid, bull-headed and sometimes dangerous.

Please excuse any grammatical and or spelling errors. It’s terribly early.

4

Flip-flop is easy enough for the American electorate to remember. Two syllables, only 5 distinct letters. It does not matter whether changing your mind is good or bad. For many people, it is only enough that Bush make a charge against Kerry, whether there is any merit to the charge or whether the charge itself is of any consequence is irrelevant. Changing your mind as new facts are available is an eleven syllable phrase and is far too complex for the American mind to contemplate.

5

Moving this political thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

6

I’ve read that an analysis was performed on what he’s said, not the sound bites the other side airs, and that he’s never changed his mind. They’ve taken his different emphasees(?) on different points and re-constructed mis-construed them as ‘flip flopping’.

7

I wish George W. Bush would flip-flop – admit that everything that he’s done so far is wrong, say that he’s very sorry, and promse to do things differently in the future. For me, the worst part of his character is his failure to listen to opposing viewpoints.

8

The real tragedy is that ordinarily intelligent people are falling into line and parroting the nonsense. It’s not like they have anything to lose by admitting that its a crock on a messageboard, for goodness sakes, but apparently their respect is worth less than 24/7 devotion to the party line.

9

Last night’s All Things Considered had an interesting report on the current nasty strain of campaign ads and how, historically, Republicans and Democrats choose to level their attacks. A study conducted at the University of Missouri revealed that over the past half-century, Democrats most typically attack on policy, whereas Republicans most typically attack on character. (There’s a stunner!)
So the Bushies’ relentless droning about Kerry’s supposed indecisiveness is just in keeping with their party’s pathetic and morally stagnant methodology.

Audio link to the report-

10

There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind as new facts become available. A decent interval between position changes is however desirable.

While noting that GWB has flip-flopped all over the political landscape and should be vulnerable to charges of swaying in the breeze to political gain, his opponent has been guilty of one of the most nauseating and incomprehensible set of position changes of all time concerning the Iraq conflict.

First Kerry voted for giving GWB a blank check to conduct hostile operations, Congress’ supposed power to declare war not withstanding. Then after things degenerated into a mess, he said he wouldn’t have done anything differently, even knowing that the rationale for the war was largely unfounded. Most recently he has said he would not have supported the invasion of Iraq based on current knowledge.

All this makes him look like a panderer and a flaming idiot - like lots of politicians, only more so. Regardless of whether you plan to vote for him (and I do), this should make you queasy.

There was a N.Y. Times interview recently with an influential political figure/commentator. On the Iraq conflict, which he had initially supported, he said (roughly) “Knowing what I now know, I would not have proceeded.”

That was William Buckley.

Why the hell was it impossible for Kerry to say that earlier in the campaign, and stick with it?

11

From Scott Adams’ latest edition of The Dilbert Newsletter:

12

Well, I’ll be the first to say that I think Kerry made the wrong decision in voting for that resolution. By that time, it was obvious that Bush was a liar and was not going to act in good faith as he claimed he would. However, it is difficult in the political context to go against the President when he is asking for this authority in order to “keep the peace” (e.g., by getting Saddam to admit the inspectors), a phrase he used 3 times in the press event where he introduced the resolution. And, you open yourself up to charges that you believe Saddam Hussein more than you believe the President of the United States (never mind that we now know that you’d be right).

And, by the way, it is the President who has publicly flip-flopped on what that resolution meant. While originally claiming that it was authorizing him to use force only so as to give him the most power to “keep the peace,” he now characterizes it as a vote for war (see, for example, one of his spokespeople here). Of course, I don’t really think he changed his mind…I think that he just lied the first time, but one is of course entitled to a different opinion.

Well, can you find the actual quote of what he said rather than just poorly paraphrasing what you think he said. I have to admit that this is the one part of Kerry’s stand that I don’t completely comprehend. On the other hand, I don’t think I have ever heard his full explanation. I know that Hillary Clinton’s opinion is strongly that the Congress should give the President this kind of latitude in dealings with foreign powers and that is why she says she would have voted that way again even though she thinks he abused the authority…But, it seems to me that if it is obviously requested for bogus reasons, one should oppose it.

Of course, counterfactual questions are always difficult to answer. If I were Kerry, I would have said that I don’t understand the question. What case would the President have made if not the WMD case? But, perhaps he felt pressured not to appear indecisive so he chose an interpretation and went with it.

13

Of course, it is easy for Bush not to change his mind in light of new facts or data because this isn’t what he bases his decision on in the first place. It is just what he uses to deceptively sell the policy that he was always interested in. His administration is completely ideology-driven.

Witness the tax cuts for the wealthy that were originally marketed as a way to give the surplus back to the people but then become a stimulus plan once the economy tanked and the current and projected surplusses began to disappear. Or, the war in Iraq that was apparently an item on the agenda long before 9/11 but got marketed as part of the war on terrorism after 9/11. Or the energy policy of more drilling and relaxing pollution regs on the power companies that got marketed as a solution to an energy crisis such as in California that turned out to be due primarily to market manipulation during a botched deregulation scheme. Or allowing the timber companies to log more which got marketed as a way to fight forest fires. Etc. Etc.

Who needs to change one’s position in light of new facts when the facts don’t influence the decisions but merely the marketing of the decisions?

14

Yes.

In Hindsight, Kerry Says He’d Still Vote for War
Challenged by President, Democrat Spells Out Stance

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 10, 2004; Page A01

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 – Responding to President Bush’s challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction…

Since last month’s Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war “knowing what we know now” about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” *

I guess the Washington Post and all the other media that reported this were guilty of “poor paraphrasing”, huh?

The smart and correct response would have gone something like this: “I would not have voted to authorize military action in Iraq had I known that Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. With that knowledge, the major rationale for a pre-emptive strike would not have existed.
I and other members of Congress had faith that the Administration would act responsibly and on the basis of good intelligence when deciding on the use of force in Iraq. It did not. We are partially to blame for giving the Administration a blank check to use the military, instead of exercising our war powers as the framers of the Constitution intended. Resolutions like the one we voted for have also been abused in the past, as in the case of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution that was used to justify our many years in Vietnam.
If elected President, I will ask for a declaration of war in all circumstances requiring military force, except in cases of the gravest immediate peril.”

Any politician in favor of Congress abdicating its war powers function is an ass, including Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

15

No…I think only you were guilty of poor paraphrasing. The Post article makes it clear that his position on this issue is similar to Hillary Clinton’s…that the President is entitled to this authority if he feels it is necessary.

I agree, however, that your answer is a better one as far as I am concerned. This is something that I disagree with Kerry and Clinton on. I’m not sure where this idea of Congress abdicating its war powers has come from and why it has gained so much credence.

16

Bushes top ten flip flops

17

Without the WMD, there is still the fact that Sadaam went Nelson Muntz on the US right after 9-11, as the only ‘leader’ who went ‘Ha ha!’ at the mourning US and the world.

In my opinion, he deserved to be overthrown just for that.

And that’s the main problem the anti-war crowd have–they have to say that, in order to punish Sadaam, they would have made the sanctions impoverishing only to him to the point that he can’t enjoy the riches he plundered. Also, make him drop his pants wile the UN inspectors search for WMD in his shorts. Anything less than that, and they sound like appeasers to Sadaam.

18

I haven’t heard of anything like this. Cite? And please explain why a $200 billion war, with 10,000-15,000 Iraqis, 1,000 Americans and about 100 others dead is justified by a single insult, however insensitive it may be.

19

Wasn’t that the basic premise behind Columbine?

I agree 100% with you, Atticus Finch.

LilShieste

20

Basic agreement, but I wouldn’t say “only.” It would also be bad to keep changing one’s position if one’s understanding at various points were poor–that is, if one is sincere each time one changes but one keeps flailing about, impulsively going for one thing, then the next.

You know, like those people who convert to a different religion every year. But I certainly don’t think this problem applies to Kerry. The whole “flip-flopping” accusation is calumny, pure and simple.