The Blog to Be Named Later returns today with a discourse on the issue of flip flopping.
Casual observers of politics will associate the term “flip flopping” with Senator John Kerry, whose 2004 campaign for the presidency was marred by allegations of political opportunism. Speaking of the resolution to use force against Iraq, Senator Kerry said “I actually voted for it before I voted against it”, and this quote was used to devastating effect in the campaign.
In 2008, the alleged flip flopper is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has also been assailed for changing his views on the critical issues of the day. Although this line of attack is being used against Romney today, it’s far from a new tactic, as I shall soon illustrate. And, of course, there is a usually a stark difference between reality and what is said about a public figure during an election campaign. Note the use of the word “usually”.
Comparing modern presidential campaigns to those that took place a hundred years ago is an apples and oranges affair, and perhaps that’s just as well. After all, George Washington once served the Crown of England, and later led the American Revolution. Flip flopper. Thomas Jefferson was a fierce proponent of limited governmental powers, then purchased Louisiana without explicit authority to do so. Flip flopper. Franklin Roosevelt promised to balance the budget when he ran for president in 1932, then proceeded to combat the Great Depression with spending to stimulate the economy. Damn crippled flip flopper.
Of COURSE politicians say one thing and do something else. They are PEOPLE. EVERYBODY says one thing and does something else. Who among us has not pledged to rise with the sun and go exercise, only to slap the hell out of the snooze button at the moment of decision? Who hasn’t made New Year’s resolutions that are not only unfulfilled but ultimately forgotten? Who hasn’t agreed to do something, say something, write something, pay for something, only to ease an uncomfortable moment, with no real intention of following through?
Now, I do not advocate deliberate dishonesty among public figures. My point is that there is a difference between a thoughtful, reasoned change in position, and one made shamelessly for political expedience. What we have in America today is an electorate that falls into one of three categories. There are those who seek inspiration and crave leadership, and if given the chance, will take what politicians say at face value. (This is a rapidly diminishing group). Then there are those who automatically disbelieve what any politician says. And of course, the third and most populous group is of those who aren’t paying attention in the first place. What election? American Idol is on!
What we need in this country is a fourth category, made up of people who possess the virtues of those in the first three categories and none of the faults. We need a typical voter to have a certain amount of faith that progress is attainable, that government can be made to work for the people. This person would have a healthy amount of cynicism, but would be willing to invest some measure of trust in their candidate. And he or she would understand how important the choice of who sits in the Oval Office really is.
So let’s assume that not only do such people exist, they might be reading this blog. Let’s examine the modern era for accusations of flip flopping and try to separate the principled from the opportunistic. Then we’ll decide together (okay, I’ll decide myself and tell you) how important consistency on the issues really is.
In modern politics, this current unfortunate trend starts with George H.W. Bush. [Insert your own George W. Bush joke here] Back in 1980, George H.W. Bush (let’s call him 41 to avoid confusion) ran for the Republican nomination against Ronald Reagan. This seems funny now, for those who remember Bush as Reagan’s lapdog during the 1980’s. Bush 41 then ran in 1988 as Reagan’s chosen successor, and his son clearly fancies himself as Reagan’s ideological heir.
In 1980, however, Bush challenged Reagan, particularly on economic grounds, calling the Gipper’s supply side trickle down theories “voodoo economics”. Rather than wade into boring economic statistics, suffice it to say that Bush was not conservative enough to be the Republican nominee. After losing the nomination to Reagan, he accepted a spot on the ticket, and suddenly developed conservative fever and fully supported Reagan’s economic policies. He also became a full fledged pro lifer, something he had never been when he was his own man.
Bush 41 knew that for him ever to be referred to as 41, as in 41st President of the United States, he would have to run in 1988 as a genuine conservative. Those in the party were not fooled, however, and a slew of candidates ran against him for the nomination in 1988, all of them from Bush’s right. And although Bush won the nomination and ultimately the election, he did so as an ideological fraud, campaigning as the ultra conservative he never was.
Once he became president, he governed like the Ivy League moderate Republican he really is. Actually, I applaud him for doing so. As a candidate for the presidency, he was a political opportunist. As the occupant of the office itself, he turned away from his pseudo conservatism to act in what he believed to be the best interests of the country. The best example of this came in 1990, when President Bush abandoned his famous “Read my lips, no new taxes” mantra from ’88, and raised taxes. Why do I consider this admirable? Because Bush 41 recognized that taxes had to go up to address the deficit, and shrinking the deficit was vital to improving the economy. So even though he took a major hit from the red meat conservatives for abandoning his no tax pledge, he did what he thought was right, despite the political consequences.
Fast forward to 2004, when John Kerry ran against George W. Bush. I don’t think there’s any great need for me to point out yet another example of the current president's hypocrisy for attacking someone for changing positions. In 2000, Bush railed against nation building and promised a humble foreign policy, for Christ’s sake. Let’s look instead at Kerry and decide if the charge was valid.
If George Bush 41 had to exaggerate his conservative tendencies to become president in 1988, John Kerry had to moderate his liberal tendencies to win in 2004. He has been justifiably criticized for running an ineffective campaign, but he still had much to overcome. He was running against an incumbent president, one more than willing to exploit the powers of his office to win the election. (Remember the terror alerts every three days in October?) Kerry had to overcome the Massachusetts liberal image and the built in Republican southern electoral advantage. And of course, there was the issue of the Vietnam War. John Kerry, winner of medals and ribbons for service to his country, could not imagine his record would be successfully slandered by George W. Bush. After all, the only ribbon Bush saw in those years was the blue one on the Pabst can.
Kerry had to run as a moderate, strong on defense, and he agonized over whether to support the war. He thought it was the right action to take, but he had no faith in those directing the effort. So he voted for one version of a force resolution but ultimately voted against it. He fell into the classic trap that has doomed the candidacy of every senator since JFK who has run for the presidency: a congressional record is easy to distort. But he didn’t flip flop. He didn’t try to have it both ways. That wasn’t his sin. His sin was that he seized the nomination on the basis of electability, but failed to capture the imagination of the American people. He didn’t have the communication skills to beat George W. Bush. How ironic.
And now we come to one Willard Mitt Romney, candidate for the presidency.
I did not judge Bush, senior or Kerry on partisan grounds. I will not do so with Romney either. This blog aspires to be a forum for thoughtful discussion of public issues, so I apologize for this, but here’s the bottom line: Republicans and Democrats alike can unite in agreement that Mitt Romney isn’t a flip flopper, he’s just full of shit!
I have never, in twenty four years of observing political campaigns, after reading hundreds if not thousands of biographies of historical figures, after virtually memorizing the history of the American presidency, come across a candidate so universally disliked by the other candidates. Of course, the Democrats hate Romney. But the Republican candidates hate him too! Mitt better watch his words the next time he’s in a debate with John McCain. I don’t care if McCain is 71 years old and disabled; if Romney distorts McCain’s record once more, I fully expect the senator from Arizona to channel John Rambo and skin Romney alive.
And when he does, all the law and order Republican candidates for president will cheer.
Why is Romney hated? Because he’s a flip flopper? Not exactly. Hey, you can change your mind. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat, after all. But Romney didn’t just change his positions. Try to follow this contortion act, if you can:
-Mitt Romney, in his first run for public office, publicly took positions on health care and gay rights more liberal than those of his opponent, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. He was to the left of Ted Kennedy, people. Only Romney and Chairman Mao have ever accomplished that.
-After losing to Kennedy in a landslide, Romney then ran for governor in 2002 as someone who could work successfully with a Democratic legislature, saying he wanted to be governor of Massachusetts and it would not be a stepping stone.
-Romney was elected and served only one term, declining to run for reelection and essentially abandoning the Commonwealth in the last year of his term to run for president.
-As a presidential candidate, Romney has adopted ultra conservative opinions and castigated other candidates for not being a real conservative like him. He has spent millions of dollars on negative advertisements attacking his opponents by distorting their records to make them look moderate or even liberal. By the way, he denies taking the liberal positions he advocated in the 1994 Senate race, even though they are all captured on video and well documented.
-Since 2005, Romney has run a campaign based on his conservative credentials and experience. Then when Obama and Huckabee won the Iowa caucus as agents of change, Romney suddenly began campaigning as the real agent of change, changing his stump speech, his website and even his yard signs. He then proceeded to begin attacking Senator McCain as a Washington insider who couldn’t bring change.
Now, a confession. I am a flip flopper myself. Some time ago, I endorsed John Edwards for president on this blog, and millions of people, swayed by my learned opinion, coalesced around my candidate.
Okay, fine, not even my wife followed my lead; she volunteered for Obama. Still, I came out for Edwards. Since that time, I have considered voting for Hillary Clinton. I blame this on a prolonged illness which caused disorientation and nausea, which by the way is exactly what Hillary herself causes.
I also thought of voting for John McCain, although I have decided to rationalize that temptation by simply supporting him for the Republican nomination and we’ll see what happens down the road.
I must confess that I am taken with Barack Obama. I always liked him; I just had concerns about his lack of experience. The current commander in chief had the thinnest resume of any modern president, and we all know how that worked out. However, I am (or was, anyway) a student of history. We once elected a president whose sum total of political experience was two years in Congress. His name was Abraham Lincoln.
Apart from that consideration, I am persuaded by the shaky voice but steady words of Theodore Sorensen, who compares Senator Obama to his former employer, President John F. Kennedy. The issue, argues Sorensen, isn’t experience. Cheney and Rumsfeld had all sorts of experience. The issue is judgment.
Senator Obama had the good sense to oppose the war in Iraq when Hillary supported it, when Edwards supported it, and when I supported it. I’m no dove. But I find myself belatedly in agreement with Senator Obama, who said in October, 2002: “I’m not opposed to all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.”
I do not disqualify Senators Clinton or Edwards for the presidency because of their vote for the war. But this shining example of good judgment on behalf of Barack Obama dramatically underscores the judgment over experience rationale. And it has changed my mind as well. In the last year, I have bounced around from candidate to candidate, mainly because I’m discouraged that none of them is named Al Gore. I do not retract my endorsement of John Edwards, and I will probably vote for him out of loyalty on February 5. But I am now flip flopping and supporting Barack Obama for president. In part this is because I don’t think Edwards can win the nomination, but I have another reason, one that runs deeper. My interest in politics began in 1983, when as a ten year old boy, I came across a newspaper article marking the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy’s murder. And now, a quarter of a century later, I am beginning to feel as if perhaps Senator Obama is my generation’s JFK, and I can’t turn my back on that idea.
So in the end, I have made my choice despite many changes of direction, leaving me vulnerable to accusations of opportunism. But in the end, I’m supporting Obama because doing so feels right. And that is what we need in America, not only from the voter, but from whoever is elected president.
