(And we all know who’s been vilified for changing his positions…Problem? He’s no different than 99% of us, in that respect. )
I am heartily sick of the continual banter about of the term ‘flip-flopper’ as if it were the most heinous of labels. We all know to whom the label applies–used-to-be frontrunner– Republican and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.
It appears he was first given that name some years back for his alleged vacillation regarding major issues of the time: immigration, right-to-life, fiscal conservatism, etc…etc…
My point is this: If changing one’s mind on issues is flip-flopping, then we’re all guilty of it. For instance, nothing frosted me more than when one of my high school daughters protested my changing my mind about her going to a party. She said: “But you told me I could go” (before I discovered parents weren’t going to be there.)
Yes, I had made a 180-degree turn. Suddenly my position was: “You’re not going.” I went on to say it was my right, as parent, to change my stand based on new information; I’d be damned if I were to be held to some arbitrary standard that was supposed to be inviolate.
On serious, national issues, I’ve changed much of my own thinking, too. There might have been a time I viewed our country as “Protector of the Free World,” a sort of policeman insuring democracy everywhere. That was pure folly on my part. America’s learned otherwise (hopefully,) after involvement in costly and ineffectual wars in the past decades. We now know we haven’t such a mighty sway or impact on others.
In fact, we’ve got plenty of crises going on in our own country requiring our own stewardship. We don’t need to borrow others’ problems.
So, flip-flopping? Republicans and Democrats act as if changing one’s mind is a sad testament to a candidate’s lack of conviction while I say changing one’s mind and political stance on issues once he or she gets new facts–or all the facts–should be what we all do. Responding to new circumstances in a new way seems the intelligent way to go.
And P.S….For the record, I don’t endorse any candidate. Yes, Ron Paul’s pretty consistent, but then again, I’m not sure he’d ever find any provocation for some of a President’s harder decisions (like “Go to war.”)
And as I said, I don’t find consistency all that alluring.
I like the poster I saw recently that said “Even Ronald Reagan, the Republican champion, would be rejected, today, as his party standard-bearer.” Why? We hold those who seek higher offices to impossibly-high standards”
Regarding Romney, I might fault him more for his tax plan, his failure to demonstrate real concern for the poor… But flip-flopping? I think we used to call it changing perspective (maturing?) and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
But what do you think? Is a person changing his or her mind on issues ‘flip-flopping?’ Or do you want your candidate consistent–no matter what? Weigh in–the Comment section is below..