Changing positions for the sake of political expediency characterizes a pet peeve of many conscientious voters. Some candidates seem to alter their stances with the wind, or more specifically, when the poll numbers drop. Glib and grinning, they smoothly glide from side to side in a sordid effort to appeal to the masses.
Though representatives should always keep the considerations of their constituency in mind, pandering to the electorate is nothing but a turnoff that reveals a severe lack of moral depth. I am referring, of course, to the accursed custom of flip-flopping among our politicians.
A serial flip-flopper alters his or her positions quickly and often. As their ideology switches back and forth, they shamelessly cross in and out of party lines. Like the Don Juan of the political arena, he tells people only what he surmises they want to hear: one moment in one camp, the next moment in another.
The current presidential candidates certainly seem to be guilty of this practice.
For instance, Barack Obama opposed the controversial individual mandate when he first ran for president. Upon arriving in office, he sang a different tune, forcing the Affordable Care Act through Congress. Since his efforts met with heated debate across the country, one could argue this episode revealed staunchness of character despite the original flip-flop. The President may not have broadened the base, but he certainly excited his constituents. It would not be disingenuous to call him a flip-flopper.
On the other end of the aisle, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has drastically changed his mind on many issues over the years; it would take more than one article to relay his haphazard reasoning. Dubbed the “etch-a-sketch candidate” by the media during primary season, Romney has altered his position on policies ranging from TARP to Obamacare to the auto bailout. Even his current esteem for the hero of the Republican party, Ronald Reagan, differs widely from that of his days debating Ted Kennedy. Notable, though, is his radical shift on the topic of abortion: As a Massachusetts moderate, he supported a woman’s right to choose. Now, he espouses pro-life values and promises Planned Parenthood would be defunded under a Romney administration. This evokes at least a degree of flip-flopping. Whether he had a true change of heart or merely hoped to appease those in the Tea Party is still anyone’s guess.
There is a fine line dividing open-mindedness from flip-flopping, after all. Much of this has to do with timing and levels of instability.
Abraham Lincoln exemplified the case of a good statesman whose thought process legitimately evolved. Prior to the presidency, Lincoln wavered on the topic of total emancipation of the slaves, yet, as we know, his paradigm shifted and he eventually declared the Emancipation Proclamation. This decision scored few points in the popularity department, but Lincoln plunged ahead anyway because he was motivated by conscience, not by groveling political ambitions. I would neither brand him a flip-flopper nor decry his adaption. Who could? If he hadn’t determined the justice of complete emancipation, grossly unequal treatment would have persisted.
Sometimes, refusing to change your view proves a dishonorable action; obstinately clinging to errancy reflects pride and ignorance. One is compelled to admit when one is wrong. Politicians should be able to make honest re-assessments when necessary and should be given room to mature in their outlook since people need to admit mistakes in order to move forward.
For the most part, though, flip-flopping as it has come to be known reveals flaws in a person’s system of values from the beginning. Many power hungry political figures have the reputation of having no core, unfortunately, yet they continue to thrive. Why?
Because flip-flopping usually works. Most voters are willing to have short memories – we forgive and forget, or at least, ignore such offenses, but mistrust remains. Jaded, citizens also attribute weasel-like maneuvers among professional flip-floppers to the nature of politics in general, concluding, “They’re all the same.” Public opinion polling conducted over the past decades by both Gallup and the Pew Research Center confirm voters’ increasing disillusionment with politicians, unelected officials and Congressmen alike.
Upright candidates, however, do acknowledge that consistency is an attractive quality . It is foolish to believe something no matter what, but sticking to your guns through thick and thin is an admirable trait. All relationships, public or private, are built on trust, so no one should ever feel deceived by someone seeking a nomination. We want our politicians to sincerely look us in the eye and make a real connection.
But before we take their word for it, integrity must be established. We deserve to know what a politician stands for and why at all times. Passion for principle still exists – it takes courage, it makes history, it wins debates, it uplifts speeches and it can lead a politician to lasting victory.
