The Insincere Flip-Flop
By Flagstaff Posted in 2008 — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have been asking myself just what it is that makes us call some position shifts "flip-flops" while others are not so disrespected. Most of it is because "they flip-flop" while "we reconsider." But it's really more than that. And when the subject comes up, we want to convince the uncommitted that "our guy's" recent change of mind is because he's thoughtful, he’s had new insight into the issue, and now he's got it right. It wasn't just a pander to some political group he'd like to add to his base.
To do this takes a couple of steps.
Please read more.
First, define "flip-flop." Not to use it as part of an argument, but to understand the phenomenon.
A flip-flop is a change of position that generates political gain. Without the aspect of political gain, no position change will ever be called a flip-flop.
Thus John Kerry's vote against the war after he had voted for it, in both cases voting with the usual Democrat gang of suspects, qualifies as a run-of-the-mill flip-flop. It was nothing special, and he ended up in a position he'll have to keep. It worked against him mainly because the reasons he gave for the position change were weak.
The second and most important step: Determine if the change of position is sincere and permanent.
This question was the defining factor during the primary competition for Mitt Romney. Conservatives didn't really care if he gained politically by switching to pro-life. The question was about his sincerity. Did he really mean it? Was it permanent? If it was sincere and permanent, the political gain was a by-product of the change, not the reason for it. Some of us were convinced it was sincere (for the reasons Romney gave). Others weren't convinced and tried to use the "flip-flop" charge against him and in favor of "X."
Similarly, the far-left is having a collective cow because Barack Obama has changed his position on FISA. We shouldn’t fall for that, however. This is the variety of flip-flop known as the “cynical pander.” It’s a feint to the right in this case, attempting to pick up some right-centrist political votes on the security issue. In other words, it’s an insincere flip-flop.
The insincere cynical pander flip-flop is followed by a reverse flip back at the earliest convenient time. There is no chance Obama will keep his new-found approval of the FISA law if he attains his White House goal.
If I’m right, how do we use it most effectively? On defense. In any discussion of Obama’s surprising and numerous flip-flops on FISA, withdrawal from Iraq, the Second Amendment, faith-based initiatives, and states’ rights, his supporters usually say, “But McCain flip-flopped on immigration and drilling for oil.”
That’s the time to bring in McCain’s principled commitment to recognizing the right of the American people to have energy independence and national security, starting with secure borders and robust American energy production. Then add, “There is no reason to believe he will now back off from those positions. They’re consistent with his basic conservative beliefs”
Obama, OTOH, has made a 180 degree reversal on all the issues listed above, and all since the end of the primary election season. There is every reason to believe he will flip back to his original positions once he’s in the White House, because they contradict his basic political beliefs. He’s a liberal Democrat, and he’s taking conservative positions. How believable is that?
Non-conservatives are paying the same price at the pump, too, you know.
1) Going from $2 to $4 gas makes a change on drilling a "reasonable shift in position."
2) Having the tax cuts in place makes dropping them a "tax increase," an undesirable change.
And, while we're at it,
3) Having his head handed to him makes his "security first" change on illegals sound quite reasonable.
Absolutely they did. They were also the right thing to do.
In the context of the essay, the debating point is that he was wrong before and now he's right.
Obama was wrong before, now he claims to agree with the positions we have had all along.
Both have flipped because of reality on the ground. Both have gained some political points, although Obama may have lost a few, too. Which one is most likely to continue, to stay with the right positions?
I had considered including a paragraph about McCain's "grudgingly acquiescent flip-flop" on the G-d border fence. He didn't gain all the points he might have with conservatives because although his sincerity level might be adequate, he still didn't seem to agree, to be fully on board with the idea of "security first" and all the reasons behind it. He seemed more like the teenager who agreed to help paint the house because otherwise he wouldn't get the keys to the car.
I tried, but I didn't make it clear that I see nothing inherently wrong with a true and sincere flip-flop. People change positions with good reason all the time and politicians should be able to do the same. "Flip-flop" was a convenient pejorative to use against John Kerry, but now it amounts to little more than name-calling until it's further identified as either inconsistent with the candidate's past history or with his party's informal platform, or as a probable cynical pander for votes that will be reversed if elected.
The first (inconsistent with history) can be answered with facts and logic. The second (inconsistent with platform) can be answered with the fabled word "maverick." The third (pandering) can only be answered by solid, convincing explanations, by appeal to the direction of the flip-flop (away from a maverick position), and by a personal history of ethical behavior and honesty.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Jonlester
I agree with you- it was good that McCain changed his position as it benefits him with conservatives and indies.
My point was that Flagstaff defined a flip flip as something that is done for 'political gain' whereas a 'position change' is not done for political gain. In this case, according to Flagstaff's definition, McCain has flip flopped on drilling.
More comment is above, but I didn't intend to say that "flip-flops" and principled "position changes" are mutually exclusive. Sometimes the only difference is in the eye of the beholder.
Perhaps an example of a position change that isn't a flip-flop would be if McCain decided that corn subsidies are actually a good idea. Maybe political gain in Iowa and Nebraska and Kansas, but way offset by political credibility loss elsewhere.
To be real clear, all positions are taken for at least one of two reasons. The position is right, or it's expedient. Often (we can hope) both are true for Republicans.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Not 2 but 3 ways to arrive at a position.
1. for the conscientious-Is it right?
2. for the cowardly-Is it expedient?
3. for the vain-Is it popular?
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business … frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise.Ronald Reagan
4. for the greedy - is it lucrative
(ie. Al Gore's position on carbon credits)
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Sorry 2yrs 33 d , I didnt mean to use your name in the last post.
that McCains change in position on drilling and the bush tax cuts did NOT bring him political gain with conservatives?