Piscene Politics

Americans since the founding of the republic have denounced their politicians as swine, but in recent years, they commonly liken them to fish. The politicians themselves can't resist this comparison either, at least when discussing their opponents. Should their foes express the slightest deviance from an earlier position, they quickly slap their rival with a label implying all the dignity and resolve of caught fish in a net: "flip-flopppers." From the earliest primaries to the eve of the general election, they level this charge tirelessly. Gleefully. Reflexively. And it seems more and more to me, witlessly.

(flashback: sometime in the 90s a senatorial candidate in some eastern state had a press event at a Waffle House to emphasize her opponent's waffling on issues. Asked by a reporter what issues he had waffled on, the candidate said she would have to check.)

I don't know if I'm on record anywhere as demanding perfect consistency from elected officials, but if I am and this statement represents a flip-flop, so be it: I hereby grant blanket amnesty to candidates who change their views on a subject during a campaign or, for that matter, at any point during their career. These reversals in themselves will not affect my decision whether or not to vote for them.

I don't think that shifting stances are unimportant or that they don't call into question a candidate's credibility and allegiances. But I don't think in all cases they fatally undermine these either. I would like to think that occasionally, leaders or would-be leaders change their minds because they believe they were mistaken in the past and believe the good of the country demands a different course of action. (Of course, they can will themselves to believe this when they change their minds for political convenience, but that's another matter). In matters like the environment, civil rights, consumer protection, etc., the country did benefit from officeholders changing their minds.

I won't deny it has suffered for the same reason, or that quite often, candidates change their minds out of sheer political expediency. The former is almost a given, which is one reason why the charges and countercharges of flip-flopping represent lazy politics. Any candidate can find a contradiction in his or her opponents' statements. They can find one for every news cycle if they look hard enough and use them to hammer their rivals into tinfoil scraps ready to be carried off by the next puff wind. That's much easier than carefully explaining one's proposals for taxes, the environment, foreign policy, health care, etc., being clear about what they will cost, who they will benefit, what vision of the country they are intended to support, and what uncertainties come with them. Easier too that taking a hard look at the country's problems and how their prior actions in office, or for that matter the actions of Joe Citizen, might have contributed to them.

I don't think that American voters are naive enough to believe that no politician will change his or her views to keep step with political fashion. My hope is that they would come to shrug off the media-aided fixation on political flip-flops. My fear is that candidates will so dread branding with the flip flopper label that they will be afraid to rethink their views for reasons of substance. That rigidity is more troubling to me than the occasional change of mind. Better a candidate be slippery as a fish than dumb as a post.