The Question of "Flip-Flopping"
I am concerned about the eagerness from both sides of the political spectrum to automatically denounce all "flip-flopping". Flip-flop has become a buzzword in politics, especially among pundits. The idea is to imply that a candidate or office-holder has no convictions but bases their political leanings essentially on what they think will get them elected or sway public opinion in their direction. However, I think it is important to note that there are several different things which come under the category of a flip-flop. Some might well be very bad. Others might actually be beneficial. There are at least two major categories of the infamous flip-flop and they are cited as the same thing rather often by pundits and party or position loyalists. They are:
1) When a candidate or office-holder says they hold one position at one date, and at another (especially comparatively near to the first date) states a radically different opinion.
2) When a candidate votes in a direction or expresses an opinion at one date and at another (especially comparatively distant from the first date) votes in another direction or expresses an opinion somewhat (or occasionally radically) modified from the original.
The first kind is almost always evidence of a lack of character. The second is more often than not evidence of thoughtfulness and the ability to change ones mind as new evidence is presented. The first is generally a bad quality to have in a politician. The second is generally a good quality.
Of course, to those with extreme and stubbornly held views, both kinds are almost always considered bad (say if you are a hardcore socialist and a candidate at first holds a socialist view and then changes it, or if you are a hardcore social conservative and a candidate at first holds a socially conservative view and then changes it). But for the average voter, I would imagine my assessment holds up.
Discuss, debate, blather incoherently... post away.
|