TPM has an interesting run down of how much Charlie Crist has changed his positions since becoming the de facto Democratic nominee. Personally, I don’t care what he does as long as he caucuses with Democrats. Yes, I realize there are those who caucus with Democrats and then sabotage important bills. But there aren’t that many. Arlen Specter was a reliable Democratic vote, which is why I had no interest in the Sestak-Specter primary (I’ll admit it’s possible that Specter only became a reliable Democratic vote when he got primaried, but that doesn’t seem so relevant an objection to Crist since you can do the same to him).
I’d like to ask a question about this: why is it bad when politicians change their positions? I guess one idea would be that they are supposed to have some kind of inner conviction on issues and that changing positions is a betrayal of that conviction. But no one believes that, do they? And if it’s bad to betray your principles, then why does the fact that George and Laura Bush support gay marriage deep down inside make it less bad that the Bush administration gay-baited instead of more bad?
Another idea would be that it is bad when politicians claim they’ll do one thing when they’re running for office and then do another when they get elected. But that doesn’t apply either: if you said you’d do one thing during a campaign and then did it and now, in the course of a different campaign, you’re saying you won’t do that thing anymore, you didn’t lie to anyone. And when people are called “flip-floppers”, it is almost invariably because they’re saying something different than what they said before, not because they’re voting differently from how they said they would.
Is there something I’m missing here? Is there some obvious problem with changing your position that I haven’t thought of?
Davis X. Machina
Shouting ‘flip-flop’ was always a.) binary, so b.) easy to explain, and c.) a perfect fit into ‘who won the news cycle’ framing and d.) up until recently, in an age when we had memories but only the newspapers had morgues, and the networks had video, a game only the uniformed players and not the proles in the bleachers could play.
It was pabulum for a lazy press corps, and a lazy electorate. It still is,
Violet
What you’re missing is that you are thinking about it. The kinds of people who scream “flip flop!” at campaign rallies aren’t spending a lot of time dissecting the underlying issues. They’re working from the gut feeling that if a politician changes his stance on something, it means he doesn’t have any strong convictions. Translation: Can’t be trusted. Isn’t a man of his word. Etc.
In the Real World, it’s not a big deal to change your mind or evolve your thinking. That’s how most of us live. But politics is as much about emotion and gut feelings as it is about issues. That’s why the “flip flop!” accusation works there and doesn’t work in other arenas.
Uloborus
Kerry was a flip-flopper. Kerry was weak. Manly men stick to their principles no matter what, and everybody will think they stuck to their principles even when they didn’t because that’s what manly men do. Because of this reasoning the media (who god damn, do they love their manly men) have bludgeoned us with the wrongness of flip-floppers. Now, as liberals we actually strongly dislike hypocrites. People who say one thing and do another kind of disgust us, especially since they usually say something nice and do something awful. It’s easy to associate ‘changing your stance publically’ with ‘lying about your intentions’, so we fall for this flip-flopping meme, too?
Personally, I think there’s a huge range. When someone proposes a piece of legislation, then votes against it, that’s assholery I do not like. When someone goes ‘I used to be pro-life, but I can’t hold that position anymore’ because of either a moral epiphany or just upholding his constituents’ desires… well, alright. The reality based community do change their opinions as necessary.
Isn’t it kind of standard for these flip-floppers to claim that they always believed what they believe now, though? That right there makes them seem very untrustworthy.
Jeff Fecke
There’s a point at which flipflopping becomes silly — call it Crossing the Mitt Romney Line, where a politician shows evidence of being open for business on absolutely every issue, and far more interested in power for power’s sake than in any sort of coherent ideology.
That said, I think it’s good when politicians are willing to change their minds. For example, Barack Obama should feel different about oil drilling today than he did in early April. It’s not a flip-flop if he does. It’s just proof he has eyes.
RSA
My take is that it’s a blend of the two ideas you suggest: That when politicians change their minds, it’s reasonable for them to change their positions (taking into account that their supporters and opponents may change sides when it comes to voting for them) but sometimes it seems that some politicians change their positions purely for political advantage, regardless of their personal convictions, and regardless of whether they think their new position is for the greater good. It makes people see them as being untrustworthy. Republicans, I think, use an overgeneralization of this idea very effectively, describing any change of position as an example of hypocrisy.
Edit: So, pretty much what others have already said above.
Bill E Pilgrim
Some it’s only when they have an actual conviction. Republicans especially seem to change their positions that way, after they re-find Jeebus.
Who was the one in Calif who just came out for gay rights? I guess he wasn’t convicted of anything, just caught.
DougJ
@Jeff Fecke:
I think that’s different, though, because Romney doesn’t acknowledge that he changed his position. He signed a bill that is very much like the federal HCR bill and now he hates the federal HCR bill. He doesn’t say “David, I was for it at the time and thought it was a great idea, but I changed my mind and now I think it’s an evil communist plot.” He pretends that the two bills were very different.
Also, he’s not a convincing liar.
SiubhanDuinne
Yeah, I’ve also never understood why “flip-flopping” in and of itself is such a bad thing. Of course, when a change in position is solely for political expediency, the candidate (or office-holder) rightly deserves to be called on it. That person has no principles to begin with. But when there’s new information available, or the person has a genuine change of mind and/or heart, then I think it’s not only *not* a bad thing, it’s actually a good thing. Sticking to one’s unwavering principles and idealogy in the face of shifting information or context no matter what is the very definition of Emerson’s “foolish consistency.”
Or, as an old coffee mug of mine once had it, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.”
DougJ
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I thought it was awesome that he just said “I’ve completely changed my mind”. I give that guy a lot of credit.
Mark S.
I seem to remember a lot of posts about Harold Ford, and how he was trying to paint himself as a lot more liberal than he was when he was representing Tennessee. I guess that was all okay, and all those flip-flops about abortion and gay rights were nothing to be concerned about. If he didn’t drop out, I’m sure Doug would have been volunteering for his campaign.
Hell yes I want a politician who doesn’t change his or her positions as frequently as they change clothes. How am I supposed to know how they are going to vote? It shows them to be either really cynical or that they haven’t thought through the issues.
ETA: I have no problem with politicians changing their minds when new information arises. But there have to be some principles that are not easily discarded.
HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist
If someone admits having a change of conviction, I can accept that.
But DougJ, I think I have a problem with this line:
It DOES make it more bad, doesn’t it?
Stroszek
The thing about Kerry is that he didn’t actually “flip flop” on anything. Rove (via Bush) claimed that supporting the invasion initially and supporting the occupation’s handling were exactly the same thing, and the liberal media lapped it up without question while providing the Swift Boaters with tens of millions of dollars in free ad plays.
DougJ
@Mark S.:
Again, that’s different. He didn’t say “hey, I used to be very right-wing on all these social issues but not I’ve changed my mind and I’m super left-wing on these issues”. He pretended that he’d always been left-wing on the issues.
Anyway, that wasn’t my problem with him. My problem with him is that he voted for the bankruptcy bill and is now fully owned by Bank of America.
Look, obviously, if you change your mind and say that, no you’ve thought the same way, that is a bald-faced lie, and that is a real problem.
dms
First of all, there is a difference between saying one thing and doing another, and changing your opinion on something based on new information or a change in circumstances.
Secondly, the classic example of this “canard” was during the height of the Kerry “flip-floppery.” When asked about something that Bush had changed his mind about (i.e., flip-flopped), I think it was our boy Bill Kristol who proclaimed, “Well, isn’t that what adults do? They change their minds based on new evidence.” So, Kerry was being fickle while Bush was acting like an adult.
I’d be fine with someone changing his/her mind if members of both parties were held to the same standard, but that has never been the case.
Rook
I sometimes wonder how often politicians vote against their own convictions and beliefs simply out of fear of losing the support of their party. It has been obvious for years that our political structure is lacking. A parliamentary system may not be as understandable and consistent, but it does appear they are granted more flexibility. Of course, I am relying on the information dished out by the American entertainment news industry.
Honestly, do you think a parliamentary system would have allowed Bush the 2nd to remain in power for 8 full years?
Violet
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:
Agreed, it makes it worse. It means they truly feel that equality for gays and lesbians is the right thing to do, but they’re totally chickenshit hypocrites who can’t say so out loud because they (or he) might not be elected.
If that isn’t hypocrisy for no reason other than pure political expediency, I don’t know what is.
Jim
Caucusing with Dems is not the same as being a Dem. The left won’t be able to primary Crist.
DougJ
@HE Pennypacker, Wealthy Industrialist:
I think it makes it more bad, but there are those who go on about how this makes the Bushes decent people and so on.
Bill E Pilgrim
@DougJ: Really?
I guess I was more astonished than impressed. It was surprising, but seeing yet another closet case who made life miserable for untold thousands, professionally, and admittedly now just out of self-loathing — I find it hard to have a lot of admiration for that.
I think it was some statement he made about how “confused” he had been that got me. Oy. Fine, work out your stuff, guys, but stop being elected and doing it in the public sphere at the expense of the rights of those who mirror your secrets to you.
Zifnab25
The Republicans really want to keep this seat in Florida. Losing Florida – electorally – is political death for the GOP. So the ‘Pubs need to keep pressure on Crist to stay Republican even after he’s been run out of the primary. They’d rather have a moderate conservative running against a hard right conservative than a moderate liberal running against Rubio.
The Republicans need to keep this Florida race win-win. The further left Crist moves, the more conservatives lose control of the seat. So the rhetoric is designed to keep pushing Ctist right.
Caren
Actually, it makes it ‘less bad’ from the teabagger side b/c even though the Bushes know Cheney’s daughter, and even though they may personally like her, they stand by their convictions and faith and gay bait and deny her rights.
Conservative principles never change, which is why changing is always bad.
Violet
@DougJ:
Don’t forget, IOKIYAR.
Also, the country in general is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. It’s hardly bold for them to hint (and so far that’s all they’ve done, right?) that they support gay marriage in such an environment. Has W. said anything about it? I’ve seen something about Laura’s hint that “people should be able to love who they want” or something vague.
Citizen Alan
@DougJ:
That’s funny, I give him none at all. He belongs to that sadly common species of Republican who can never be bothered to give a damn about even the worst forms of discrimination until he is the one being discriminated against. Now that he can no longer plausibly deny being gay, he is in danger of being subjected to the very same bigotries that he perpetuated against open homosexuals while he himself was in the closet. So he’s changed his mind. What a surprise.
williamc
I think what you’re missing is the gene that makes an adult act like a spoiled child. Employing the phrase is just name-calling someone for changing their mind.
I’m one of those folks that talks politics with everyone whenever I feel like it, because I studied it in college, I work in a public policy fueled world (affordable housing), and I’m well-informed about current events on a wide range of topics, BUT I have never used the phrase “flip-flop” in conversation unless I’m talking about shoes, and I don’t recall anyone else I know using it outside of shoe talk either. Real people change their minds about stuff after they try it out and it doesn’t work.
Even the most famous examples of this flip-flopping phenomenon that I can think of, Romney and John Kerry, weren’t really flip-floppers. Romney just changed his position from reasonable to wingnut, he didn’t go back and forth, and Kerry got caught up in the Bushapolooza back in 2004 where up was down and black was white, war heroes were cowards and deserters were President. I don’t even remember what he supposedly flipped on besides the whole “I voted for it before I voted against it”, as there was so much BS flying around back then, I just remember the taunts of the purple band-aids and the actual prop flip-flops.
WereBear
Yes, but those who go on about it are lying bits of smegma trying to have their bigot cake and eat it, too.
MattF
Well, just think of the moderates who voted for Romney in Massachusetts. They’re feeling… used, if not disillusioned. Maybe this is simply the sort of thing that happens when you support a local politician with national ambitions, but it’s certainly not a positive thing.
Davis X. Machina
Since the UK in the 1860’s at least — this is a recurring theme of Anthony Trollope’s Palliser novels, especially Phineas Finn, Phineas Redux and The Prime Minister.
Citizen Alan
Only when you change your position by moving to the left. With the possible exception of that idiot from Alabama who switched to the GOP and is about to get teabagged for his trouble, I can’t think of a single politician whose paid a significant political price for flip-flopping to the right on any issue. Usually politicians who do so are praised for their sensible adult behavior, since the “right” position defaults to the steely-eyed pragmatic position in the eyes of the media morons.
Bill E Pilgrim
@williamc: Kerry didn’t “flip flop” at all, or no more than anyone else. I remember people back then running long lists of all of the contradictions and self-opposing positions George W Bush had taken over the years, and it was a lonnnng list. That was entirely Rovian bullshit about Kerry.
What Kerry did was make long, rambling, astonishingly bad speeches and responses to the charges of flip-flopping, so to the average American with the attention span of a soap bubble he sounded like he must be the flip-flopper that the Rovians claimed he was.
“I may have made a mistake in how I talked about the vote, but not in the vote itself” was possibly the worst campaign line I ever heard, and he used it over and over. Horrible.
Robert Waldmann
On Sestak vs Specter one might also care (as I did) based on electability. I think Sestak has a better chance so I’m pleased.
The proposal to primary Specter in 2016 when he will be 86 is not practical. Even Specter must know that Specter is mortal. More generally, an imminent primary focuses the mind much more than a distant one.
I think it is useful to note that someone who now says he will do what you want has flip flopped. They are less trustworthy. You have to claim there is no correlation in changing positions campaign to campaign and changing positions from campaign to actual service. Anyone who trusted the moderate McCain of 2000 to remain moderate was a fool as is anyone who claims to be able to forecast anything about what Romney would do if he were ever elected to any office again.
I do agree that the media make too much fuss about flip flopping. I think the key problem is that they will not discuss the merits of different policy positions. So all firmly held beliefs must be treated equally and the only difference is between the firm believers and the flip floppers. I would have hoped that 8 years of Bush would have taught people to prefer the flip floppers, but once the question is reduced to flip flop or not, consideration of almost everything important is ruled out of order.
I’d say the relentless focus on the trivial by the media is based, in part, on a sort of pretence of humility. They are not worthy to contribute to the debate on important matters, so they discuss minor matters. It would be fine by me not contributing to the debate meant not presenting their opinions (who cares). However, it also implies not mentioning the relevant facts if Republicans choose to make demonstrably false claims on important issues (I don’t know if it’s also OK if you’re a Democrat).
Davis X. Machina
@Bill E Pilgrim: Best Dem candidate of my lifetime, pre-Obama. Nearly beat (or beat depending on Ohio) a sitting wartime president, in an unrelentingly hostile media environment. Wilkie and Dewey couldn’t do it.
fasteddie9318
As others have said, it matters why the change of position happened. If a politician has reflected on an issue, new facts have entered the arena, etc., then of course a change of position is perfectly reasonable. If, however, after changing parties and coming up against a dangerous primary opponent, suddenly positions that a politician has taken for years are diametrically opposed to their new views, that’s suspect. And the reason it’s suspect is because, if they con the electorate into voting for them, there’s no real reason why they wouldn’t revert back to their real selves afterward (or, alternatively, if their earlier positions were all politically expedient cons, then they’ve been lying for years and still can’t be trusted). There’s a politically expedient flip and then there’s an honest change of view.
Bill E Pilgrim
@williamc: By the way, if anyone wants to have fun in a jolting sort of way, go back and read John Cole posts from the 2004 election.
I did, only once, and it was fascinating to see him posting exactly the same points, same spirit, intellect, biting manner and so on– but all pointing out how “the media is so obviously in the tank for Kerry” and so on.
I don’t mean it as a slam against Cole, I find it sort of admirable, in fact nothing could be more appropriate for this post by Doug than the voyage that JC seems to have taken. I find it utterly fascinating, having been a far left Chomsky Commie for my entire sentient life. How boring is that?
fasteddie9318
@Davis X. Machina:
Imagine what he could have done if he could string together a coherent sentence, or if he’d said, well, anything about the Swift Boat Liars instead of going windsurfing. The fact that he came as close as he did to winning (or, as you say, actually won given the cheating that went on in Ohio) after the campaign he ran is proof positive that Bush was ripe for a defeat that year.
Lisa K.
It’s not the changing one’s mind per se-it’s the impression it leaves that one is doing so for political gain. As somebody already noted, Mitt Romney is the poster boy for this and the biggest reason why he will never be president (I always felt if Mitt Romney just ran as who he is instead of who he thinks everybody wants him to be he would be a much, much better national candidate. )
Bill E Pilgrim
@Davis X. Machina: Yeah but with the amount of failure George W Bush had already had, painfully visibly, it’s hard to say that he was just this strong “war time President”, there was a lot of fail there already. Put another way: The entire rest of the world wasn’t astonished beyond measure when Truman won. There’s a reason for that.
There’s a case to be made for both sides of that, Bush really should have been beatable. I agree however that the war had something to do with it, I kept seeing people interviewed afterwards who said “Well, I’m not sure about Bush but I just don’t see changing horses in the middle of a war” and so on. So I know it was a factor.
I liked Kerry. In terms of his positions, his personal manner, his story, intelligence, all of it. In a sane world being a compelling speaker wouldn’t be such a factor in elections. It is however, and Obama is a perfect example of when that works the other way. It does matter.
Alan
Flip Flops?! Screw that! Vibram FiveFingers!
Oh wait, what was this thread about?
Redshift
I disagree about this being a practical plan. Even without the problem noted above that Crist caucusing with the Dems is not the same as being a Dem from a primary perspective, senate terms are six years, and primary campaigns are nowhere near that long. Talking about a potential of a primary challenge is extremely unlikely to have a similar effect.
Sestak’s primary challenge changed Specter’s voting for his entire time as a Dem because Specter’s time as a Dem wasn’t much longer than a primary campaign, and because he didn’t have six years establish himself as a Democratic incumbent.
Gheby
A few other people have touched on this but my two cents:
It’s not the actual changing of the mind – it’s the fact that you’re doing it solely for political gain. In the case of Crist, he’s done a complete 180 on a number of different issues in less than a month. Presumably, what he ‘really’ believes didn’t change all that much from a month ago, and all of these new positions he’s staking out are purely a political calculation. He may very well ‘really’ believe these, but honestly, can anyone (besides Crist) really claim to know what he ‘really’ believes?
And therein lies the true problem – we don’t really know what this guy believes, but we do know that he’ll change from opposing an idea to supporting an idea in an extremely short time if it’s politically convenient. We pick senators and representatives and governors and all the rest to represent us based on whether we generally like their approach to governance, but how can we accurately do that if we really don’t know what their approach to governance will be in 6 months’ time?
Violet
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I know that was a factor, but it’s just stupid. The law requires that after a President serves two terms, that’s it. And so after Bush’s second term he had to leave. And guess what? We were still in the middle of a war. So the American people had to have a new President no matter what. So we elected one. And the country is still standing. It’s a ridiculous fear, but it’s obviously there.
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Just skimmed August through November, 2004. It’s been awhile since I’ve done that. He’s definitely changed. It is kind of eye popping how much.
Davis X. Machina
@Bill E Pilgrim: Historians will rate his campaign highly – but they vote late, and in small numbers.
Redshift
@Lisa K.: Perhaps, but that makes it a textbook illustration of the difference between what it takes to succeed in the Republican nomination process vs. the general election. Romney’s most shameless flip-flops and denials have been to appeal to Republican primary voters and donors.
dm
I agree that changing positions isn’t necessarily bad and sometimes is good – it can be a thoughtful response to changed circumstances or a sign of growth or wisdom.
But there’s a significant subset of these changed positions which I think reflect something more opportunistic and venal and something that leaves us feeling that we are being lied to – either the previous position was a lie or the current one is. Politicians tell us lots of things when they’re running for office that may make them popular back home but which would be anathema in the Versailles on the Potomac. In this incarnation, a changed position isn’t democratic – as you present it Doug – but more like bait-and-switch.
Ecks
Politicians are basically in this impossible place. On the one hand your job depends on a lot of people with wildly discrepant demands voting for you because of what you stand for, and if you don’t play the game of pandering up a bit here and spinning things the opposite way somewhere else you just don’t get elected, someone else does. In that sense we make impossible demands on people from too many sides, and get the government we deserve. I’ve seen a couple of politicians come along (usually at low levels) who were far too honest for their own good, and say things in hard-economic-times election campaigns like “we’re going to have to let some teachers go,” or “taxes are going to have to go up.” They get voted out with extreme prejudice… Even though they were telling the truth. In fact, because they were telling the truth.
On the other hand, people have to vote for you on the basis of very limited information about what you will actually do for the next 2-6 years. All they have to go on is what you say you’ll do, and they have to worry that you aren’t telling the truth. Again, it’s probably an unrealistic expectation – even the person them self often don’t know how they’ll react until they’re actually in a situation (think about your own life – you learn about yourself when you find yourself in hard places). But we are leery that we are just getting played, so resent people who would “flip flop” and constantly be saying different things.
In short, “flip flopping” is what happens when you have an electorate who insist they will only give you a job if you are unswervingly straight with them and yet will under no circumstances vote for you if you are, in fact, unswervingly straight.
Allison W.
I have wondered the same thing for a very long time. I think its perfectly fine for politicians to change their minds and when voters, opponents, or the media punish or bash them for it, it hurts progress. The reason for the change is important though. Or at least it must “look” like a good reason.
And let’s not forget John McCain people. I wasn’t paying attention to Kerry or Romney at their peak, but dang, is either of them worse than John McCain? Of all the whackness I have seen coming from the GOP, John McCain, imo, is the most despicable. He sold himself as honest and principled. Even had some on the Left thinking he was serious. He isn’t. Was he ever?
williamc
@Davis X. Machina:
I agree with you actually…I remember the day after the election that November, I will call it shell-shocked, because while I knew that Kerry sounded like the kind of east coast elitist that the Cons always try to make us out to be, at least he wasn’t a blathering nincompoop who made word salad out of the simplest stuff and had some misgivings about a misguided mismanaged war. The only silver lining from 2004 was that Kerry got so close to winning even with all the mis-steps.
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I’ve been on the wayback BJ train before, I’m trying to stay out of doing it again, as I don’t want to think less of JC…
KRK
I wasn’t paying too much attention to the “flip-flop” brouhaha during the 2004 election, but it somehow stuck with me that the accusation (however inaccurate) of being a flip-flopper requires that one (1) hold a position; (2) “flip” to a position contrary to that originally held; and (3) at then “flop” back to the original position.
I must be wrong about that because it seems that everyone uses “flip-flop” as a synonym for “change position,” but I swear it was a multi-step movement at one point.
Phoebe
I don’t have time to read what other people answered right now so sorry if someone else said this:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your positions, IF you really are changing your positions. You know, for actual reasons like you changed your mind because you got new information.
If you change your positions many times, or suddenly 180 degrees, or at a suspiciously politically convenient time to change your position, then it is bad because — and only because — it is evidence that you never changed your mind at all, that you in fact never had a mind, and that you were making your decisions strictly by the polls, or what you thought the polls were. That you don’t give a rat’s ass what is actually good for your constituents or the country, that such considerations are not what motivate you at all, but that what motivates you is whatever you think is likely to get you re-elected or a giant bag of unmarked bills or something.
Ecks
@Davis X. Machina:
Actually that might not matter much if you can convince them to vote in Ohio or Florida…
Redshift
It is certainly the case that most braying about flip-flopping is just an attempt to punish a candidate, either as a campaign tactic (the most shameless being the business with Kerry) or more frequently just to punish them for switching to a position someone doesn’t like.)
I generally have no problem with a politician changing positions based on learning new evidence or changing conditions. Many of the worst politicians are those who claim to have “principles” (because “ideology” doesn’t sell as well) that are impervious to reality.
But they do have an obligation to explain it. The problem Gheby describes is very real — you want to have some assurance that the candidate you’re voting for based on his newfound position won’t change it again as soon as it becomes advantageous. I’m sure Crist would like all his new supporters to believe that he really would have preferred to take these positions all along, but Republicans would have run him out on a rail. However, if he doesn’t say that (to avoid alienating remaining GOP support), there’s no way of knowing, and even if he does say it, no one knows whether to trust it.
Mark S.
I looked at Crist’s flip-flops in the article and they are pretty weak sauce:
1. DADT: His position is the same as McCain’s supposedly was (defer to the military brass)
2. Off-shore drilling: Only a fucking idiot wouldn’t have concerns about this now.
3. Supporting Kagan after having opposed Sotomayor: a bit silly but who cares?
4. Some stupid abortion law that only zealots would favor.
Of course Crist is moving left, but these are mostly silly and I wouldn’t call them flip-flops.
Violet
@Ecks:
This is very true. Which is why voters try to get insight into a candidate’s character, and why something like the “flip flop” accusation has legs. It’s not so much that someone has changed their position, it’s why, on what issues, under what provocation and so forth.
As voters we don’t know how a person is going to vote or what kind of representative they will be. So we try to figure it out using the tools we’ve got. Party affiliation is one tool, as it gives us an idea of the candidate’s beliefs and how they’ll vote. Character is another. It’s hard to assess character, but flip flopping can be a sign of weak character, if it’s done purely for political gain.
Royce
Well, the obvious problem with changing your position in a political context is that your constituents aren’t being represented. If a politician says they will vote one way and changes once in office, that’s basically taking away representation from the constituents who voted you into office.
But the flip-flopping thing is just Rightwing insanity as a talking point. In their case, “flip flopping” is supposed to mean you are weak, whiny and without inner conviction. It serves the lock-step Right until it doesn’t, at which point they ignore, lie or pretend as seems most advantageous to them at that moment.
jl
Off topic, but below may be interesting for those who are making a scrap book for the pundit Katrina / BP / emo meltdown.
I cannot bear to risk a click. I wonder if they all wrote the same column? Maybe I will remember to check later this week.
OK, I couldn’t resist. IMHO, they did all write the same column. Rich is marginally better than the others, since he gives some background into how the corporate regulatory capture happened under Bush. But could he not give more facts about what happend subsequently under Obama?
BTW, on some pundit show, a reporter mentioned a recent ‘pollution law’ that she implied gave BP primary control of the containment and clean-up effort. Anyone hear of that? What is she talking about?
In all the stories I have read, I have not heard about any legal impediment to the federal government being able to direct disaster response in federal and international waters, and that effects resources for which the feds are responsible (of which there are many along the gulf coast). What is up? Anyone know?
Lord, the US press is so awful. They seem to not even understand that that there is a reality to report.
MAUREEN DOWD
Once More, With Feeling
President Obama is still learning to emote, five weeks into the heartbreak in the Gulf of Mexico.
FRANK RICH
Obama’s Katrina? Maybe Worse
The president’s credibility as a champion of reformed, competent government is held hostage by video from the gulf.
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Malia for President
President Obama’s next task? Shaping the public reaction to the gulf spill so that we can use it to generate the will to break our addiction to oil.
PS: I do not see any problem with politicians changning their positions if circumstances change, and if they give their reasons. The voters can judge. If, from the politician’s viewpoint, circumstances include not having to deal with batsh*t crazy GOP primary voters, I would listen somewhat skeptically.
Polish the Guillotines
I’m not sure how far back in our politics this goes, but in recent history, I think the seminal moment was George H.W. Bush and the “Read my lips… no new taxes!” pledge.
The Village wisdom is that his reversal on his pledge is a big part of why he lost to Clinton. From there on, reversing yourself on any campaign pledge is viewed as political suicide.
Rove really went after Kerry on this with the “flip-flopper” label, and it just cemented the conventional wisdom when Kerry lost.
That’s my theory, anyway.
Redshift
@Allison W.:
No, he’s been self-serving and vindictive politician from the beginning. His vaunted “maverick” persona where he took “principled” stands against his party (the source of most of the adulation) was largely the result of being pissed off at how he was treated in the 2000 primaries. In the past year and a half, he has caromed from dickish refusal to cooperate with the administration on anything despite his reputation for bipartisanship (because he deserved to win, dammit!) to jumping on whatever hard-right nuttiness seems necessary to win his primary. The 2000 McCain was the aberration, not the reality.
Redshift
@KRK: I think you’re misremembering. I can’t recall any instance of “flip-flop” being used specifically to describe switching positions and then changing back.
Ecks
@Redshift: What about Crist? How was he as governor? Assuming that his swing right was just for job-survival purposes (a certain amount of which is understandable – you don’t get to high office without them, you just don’t), is he reverting to a posture he had for years, or is it more complicated? Anyone here from Florida? How was he in action (as opposed to in posture)?
DougJ
@jl:
Yes. Quite a trifecta.
Tunch
I’m happy with Sestak because the narrative is that Specter got pushed from the left. I support that.
And a stronger candidate in the general won. Have you seen Specter on TV recently? He’s 80 and talks like he’s drunk or has a mouthful of marbles.
And open me up a fucking can of tuna fish bitch. I’m starving.
Linda Featheringill
Mohammed Ali said that if you don’t change your mind in 30 years then you have wasted 30 years.
Woodrowfan
@Davis X. Machina:
Yeah, I agree. I think Shrub won the popular vote for real in 04, but stole Ohio to win the electoral college.
How many elections could be considered “stolen” in US history, that is, the final result was determined by dishonest tactics by one side or another.
1824 perhaps. Jackson probably should have won.
1876
1888
2000
2004
(no, not 1960, JFK would have won without Illinois and the Repukes stole as many downstate votes as Daley stole for JFK in Chicago).
Funny, of the 5 stolen, the Repukes stole 4.
MTiffany
Politicians changing their positions is not necessarily bad. If they change their position on a subject because new information has come to light and they’ve learned more, then change is not bad, in fact it’s good and should be lauded — we should be encouraging people, especially politicians, to learn as much about a subject as there is to know. Change for the sake of self-preservation, a la Arlen Specter, is simply intolerable.
Incertus (Brian)
@Ecks: I’ve been in Florida five years, and this is the one nice thing I’ll say about Crist–he can be swayed. Now, is he being swayed by evidence or by public opinion? Probably more of the latter, I think, but I’d rather have that than someone who’s doctrinaire. Given my druthers, I’d like to see Senator Kendrick Meek take the seat next January, but if that doesn’t happen, Senator Crist won’t suck as hard as Senator Rubio would, especially if the Dems can convince Crist to caucus with them.
kay
@jl:
Jesus. They’re so bad at their job.
It’s called the Oil Pollution Act and it’s the entire framework for the response. That they’re just getting around to casually mentioning it to you, in passing, should give you some understanding of how well-informed the critics are.
The EPA has a really handy bullet-pointed summary of What Americans Need to Know.
Thank God, right, because it’s not like news people are going to tell them. That would get in the way of them talking about their feelings.
Maybe we can print it off and mail it to people.
They’re actually a bar to information. They’re now standing in the way, chit-chatting.
kay
@jl:
If it were just this I could understand. But it was the same with H1N1.
We may need a federal agency to deliver information, alongside the free market. I cannot imagine what would happen if there were an actual pandemic or nation-wide emergency, where they had to impart information.
They’re be talking about their feelings of loss, and polling.
jl
@kay: Thanks very much. Found stuff on EPA and Wikipedia.
But those sources (which agree quite closely) do not say what the reporter said. She said that the ‘pollution law’ gave BP control or authority over the containment and cleanup. That is not what either the EPA or wikipedia say.
Batocchio
It’s not, when they can credibly explain why, and the change is common sense or an improvement on their previous position. I wish it happened more often. The festish for “consistency,” such as “staying the course” even in the face of overwhelming evidence against doing so, is insanity.
However, inconsistency often reveals hypocrisy, corruption and being untrustworthy. Most of the GOP and Blue Dogs in Congress fall in this category. Mitt Romney is a perfect example – they guy doesn’t even respect the American people enough to concoct plausible lies. He’s a transparently, farcically insincere scumbag. Who knows what he’d do as president? I’d like my elected scumbags to at least have some commitment to basic competency.
kay
@jl:
I think there’s real confusion over one term: “responsible party”. That’s a term with a very specific meaning, that has to do with liability.
People like Chris Matthews heard the word “responsible” and his brain shut down, and the confusion spread from there.
There are jurisdictions, EPA and Coast Guard, and then there are duties, and then there is who pays.
There are good and practical reasons why BP is hiring the clean up contractors. It skips one level of management, and there are good and practical reasons for the feds to want to keep BP in the driver’s seat, because if they don’t, BP can weasel out on damages. They’ll say they aren’t responsible for costs related to damages post-spill, because the feds did the work.
The federal government are managing the spill, according to applicable law. They are not going to stop repeating “responsible party” however, and they are not going to deviate from that OPA framework, no matter how many reporters ask them to. They shouldn’t. It will come back to bite them.
pattonbt
For me, flip flopping becomes an issue based on the stridency of the previously held view. The more strident the person was in the original position the more cynical I am of any change.
The way I see it, if they were sooooo wrong about that original position, how can I trust them on any future position. And if they have changed so much, maybe they should think about a different career as they have proven that their judgement/belief is pretty susceptible to major error.
I don’t trust politicians but recognize they are in between a rock and a hard place most of the time with rhetoric and policy positions. So I tend to be OK with politicians taking vague stances and leaving themselves wiggle room, etc.
But those who are strident in their rhetoric, the more they change the worse I view them. Because it shows that their judgement is 100% suspect (whether that judgement was based on political expediency or belief).
I also view the original position itself. War – non negotiable. If you cock-up on war and try later to sing the “woe is me” blues – screw you. Social conservative issues – go to hell. Flip flopping on those buys you a ticket to hell right from go as far as I am concerned.
kay
@jl:
Jindal is trying to thread the “responsible party” needle too:
Three Democratic state senators blasted Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal on Saturday for not quickly distributing $40 million in grants from BP at the same time he’s been criticizing the company and the Obama administration for taking too long to provide needed resources to combat the Gulf oil spill.
Jindal has “been out there talking to the people impacted by the disaster and the media and got his life jacket on and is out in the water, but I want him to use his executive power to get resources out there instead of standing on the bully pulpit and pointing fingers,” said state Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans.
Peterson said that at a meeting Thursday with BP officials, coastal Louisiana legislators and representatives of the Jindal administration, it was disclosed that the state has spent only about $3 million of a $25 million BP grant for spill-related expenses, and that it has not yet issued a contract for BP’s $15 million grant to promote tourism attractions threatened by the spill.
It also was revealed that the state has called up only 1,100 of the 6,000 National Guard members authorized for the spill clean-up efforts, Peterson said.
Jindal spokeswoman Melissa Sellers said the governor talked to BP officials on Saturday and they agreed to contact parish officials to address any additional financial needs.
“As Louisiana now has more than 100 miles of shoreline impacted by this oil spill, parishes are working directly with BP to ensure that the company is 100 percent responsible for all coastal protection and clean-up efforts related to this spill,” Sellers said.
Elise
This is beyond ridiculous. There is a Democrat in this race and he is going to get the bulk of the Democratic base’s votes in November. Charlie Crist is a liar. I’m in Florida and I have to be represented by the next Senator here and I expect it to be Kendrick Meek, not a flip flopping orange asshole who doesn’t stand for anything but himself.
Kendrick Meek put it perfectly after Crist’s latest flip-flop:
Crist isn’t going to caucus with Democrats and I’m tired of every asshole who subscribes to Townhouse repeating that he will. Crist will caucus with whoever offers him the most benefit – and that will be Republicans.
Crist just vetoed certain elements of the budget here last week – most of the vetoed items were health and education initiatives.
Crist is a self-professed life long conservative.
And apparently you need to hear this message as well.
The fact that ANY Democrat would entertain the idea for 5 seconds of voting for this asshole makes me wonder if any of those people are actually Democrats at all – or whether they understand what it means to be a Democrat.
jron
flip-flopping is bad because it requires the press to pay attention, and makes it harder for hosts to keep up. this is also why they have ’roundtables’ instead of real debates between experts. much better to not have to adjust to new ideas for decades at a time.
I’ve found that ‘sticking to principles’ is usually the result of intellectual laziness, and not just on the part of politicians.
NRH
Crist has some decent inoculation against the dread ‘flip-flopper’ tag. In particular, I think he can point to when he stood with Obama to support the stimulus package as a moment when he was being a pragmatic and sensible centrist, and it is to his sorrow blah blah blah that his party was hijacked by right-wing extremists and so he’s running as a *real* Republican who wants to govern responsibly et cetera et cetera. No, he’s not the guy I’d want to see win when there’s a real Democrat in the race, but depending on how much bridge-burning with the far right he does between now and November, I might be ready to accept that he’d be a reasonably reliable Democratic vote as an independent, at least on most topics, which is better than Rubio under any circumstances. I’d rather see Crist drop out and support Kendrick Meek, but that would only happen if Crist’s support and fundraising tank badly and he’s burned his bridges on the right. Next would be Meek winning the three-way, second only because it would of necessity be a closer race. And third would be Crist winning and caucusing with the Democrats because the Republicans at this point hate him too much to let him back. Fourth would be Crist winning and getting back into the Republican caucus because there’s at least an outside chance he might be gettable on votes here or there, and dead last under any circumstances is Rubio.
DougJ
@Elise:
Minority parties always have more to offer, right?
Triassic Sands
It is less a matter of one changing a position than it is WHY the person changed his or her position.
In the case of Specter, it was obvious that he was changing his positions to help his short term political prospects. He could just as easily change again when it suited him. That makes him both a weasel and untrustworthy. Who wants to vote for an untrustworthy weasel?