This is what I think of when I hear Flip-Flop too. It implies that the person thinks to themselves " I guess that my firm support of raising babies for food isn’t going over very well. I know, I’ll tell people instead that babies are to be cherished, not eaten, and I’ll get more votes!" and they change their staunch based on public opinion, not how they truly feel about enacting a modest proposal.
Changing one’s mind can be a good thing, as long as it’s because they were wrong or got more information that clarified an issue, not because they’re trying to win a popularity contest. Okay, we all know they are trying to win a popularity contest, but they oughtn’t be obvious about it.
If flip-flop means to change one’s vote for political gain, then I haven’t found an example of where Kerry has “flip-flopped” in any of the examples provided so far in this thread or mentioned in the Bush ads that I’ve heard. The reasoning has been sound to me, but then I am a liberal Democrat.
So far I think that Kerry would have been foolish not to change his vote.
It just looked more responsible when we had a surplus rather than a debit in January of 2001.
There was a time when Liberal was considered a pleasant label. Eisenhower (1952-1960) was a Liberal. No one would have dreamed of saying that he was soft on Communism. The Liberal Presidential candidate (LBJ) in 1964 took the vote in 49 states! The Conservative took only his own state – and he (Goldwater) was a cool guy as Conservatives go.
Bush does not represent Conservatives well and many of them know and acknowledge that. I agree with you that Kerry is a Liberal on many issues and I think he will take some of the sting out of the word because he is able to reason beyond just the traditional Liberal position. What Bush calls “flip-flopping” will be seen for what it really is – flexibility when it is appropriate.
What has persuaded you to hold such a negative opinion of him that you would ascribe such terrible motives? Can you be specific?
You know, if a politician changes his mind on an issue because he figures out that most people want him to change, that’s a plus in my book. His job is to represent the views of his constituents.
There is a big difference between “flip-flopping” and a change in opinion. Flip-flopping implies that the candidate really doesn’t have an opinion or feels it’s more important to appeal to whatever audience he/she happens to be speaking to, or sail with whatever politcal wind happens to blow at the moment. The reason for the change is one of politcal expediency rather than opinion. It bespeaks indecisiveness or lack of a real vision at best and deceptiveness at worst.
A change of opinion is typically associated with new evidence for the case of the opposing viewpoint.
If Kerry is a “flip flop” due to changing his views on the war on Iraq… then the 9/11 commission is “flip flop” too… they said they wouldn’t have voted for the war with the information they have now. The american public also changed from overwhelming support for the war to less than 45% support. So the public is also “flip flopping” ?
While the 9/11 commission is lamenting the fact that they can’t predict the future, they aren’t flip-flopping if they really would have had a different opinion given the evidence that has now come to light. Like the song says “I wish…that…I knew what I know now…when I younger…”
What sets flip flopping apart from a change in opinion is if the former appears to be a
politicallly expedient change rather a real change of heart.
I agree that Kerry does appear to follow the “politically expedient” change… but he could just like the public and the 9/11 commission be having second thoughts no ?
In regards to Iraq, however, new evidence was coming to light. Hans Blix says that he had a sea change in his personal belief as to whether Saddam had any significant stocks of WMDs, from believing that they probably did (just because he bought the U.S. and U.K.'s utter certainty on the matter) to being much more doubtful when he found that the info that the U.S. and U.K. intelligence were giving him in terms of where to check just weren’t leading to jack-shit. And, he communicated these doubts to the Bush Administration, which was unfortunately apparently not willing to entertain new evidence. (Check out Hans Blix interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, available online, to hear him discuss this.)
And, of course, this is a pattern with this Administration…They are not interested in changing their opinions or policies in light of the evidence because these opinions and policies are formulated without regard to the evidence and purely in regards to their own ideological blinders.
Not always. If it’s an issue where the general populace is uninformed or underinformed, like most foreign-policy questions, for example, then he must weigh his informed opinion more heavily than the uninformed opinion of his constituents. A Congressman/Senator is as much a delegate as he is a representative.
And the president isn’t a representative of anyone. He’s an elected executive, and does not represent any constituency group.
I agree. A good real world example is Bush’s position on steel tarriffs. One day they are vital to protect our economy, the next, well, not so much. The whole steel tarriff fiasco was a transparent sop to voters in the battleground industrial states, which had a net negative effect on the American and world economy. Purely political, a plainly bad idea, a text book flip-flop.
Well, there are questions of fact, and there are questions of opinion. If, as in Spain, most of the country does not want to join a foreign war, and the elected officials do it anyway, they’re doing a poor job and deserve to get canned.
Sure he does - that group consists of every American voter.
As a matter of fact, Bush very much modified his opinions. Before 9/11, he was relatively isolationist, and was very much against the U.S. taking on the role of world policeman. After 9/11, he decided that the U.S. needs to be pro-active in policing the world.
Whatever way you look at it, Bush has been steadfast about one thing, the war in Iraq, and that for some strange reason has convinced a lot of the electorate that he is a man of certitude and passion and will not waffle with tough decisions (leaving aside the bigger issues of consequences etc).
Bush’s position on steel tarrifs is a classic flip-flop. On the 9/11 commission, another classic example. I’m sure Kerry, being a seasoned politician, has done some of those as well… but to label Kerry a waffler and Bush a strong leader is mindless rhetoric which has actually stuck in the minds of the median voter.