Is Political Flip-Flopping Really Bad?

I never put too much thought into the rhetoric that is used in politics, especially in the today political climate. There’s far too much of it for anyone to really take seriously. It’s all been said before, done before and used ad nauseam that most people just tune it out.

In the last decade everything seems to be about scaring us into run to one side of the isle or party or candidate, that it’s hopelessly pointless.

One of the blanket attacks everyone uses against everyone else is that they “flip-flop”.

Flip- Flop.

Like many other asinine statements ground into our brains, like slippery slope, one wonders some times what it really means and why it is sneered at so regularly.

Normally, flip flopping means that a candidate or politician constantly changes their opinion or stance on an issue just to get voter support. This means, of course, that they’re a charlatan. A liar and a cheat who cares not for the good of the masses but they own vanity.

However; isn’t that true of every politician or candidate? I know of no one in government who isn’t in line with one mainstream opinion or another. Hot-button issues usually get sidelined or ignored or dodged unless the vast majority of people agree on it. Right or wrong.

We voters tend to be Monday morning quarterbacks. We come late to the game on issues. We buy into the 30 second ads. We don’t do the homework. Issues like gay marriage, torture, taxes, etc. we just have knee-jerk reactions. And sometimes we can be horribly wrong.

First you’re for something, and then you’re not?

And we sneer and boo those who stand behind the war regardless of its reasons, and possible future ramifications.

It would seem reasonable then that changing your mind for the better is seen as positive. So why hate those flip floppers?

Is there anything really horrendous about changing your stance on an issue if new evidence or information comes to light? Is it wrong to be human, normal and have a change of heart? The rest of humanity does it. People who are against things like abortion, guns, gay marriage, or the death penalty can have a change of mind on the subject. Someone can be for gun ownership until a loved one is killed by one. Someone can be for abortion until after they have one and feel remorse for it. And back and forth it goes on many more issues.

If the general stance is that flip-flopping is bad because we (supposedly) hold these people to a higher standard than we do for ourselves, then why is it so important to feel that they are relatable and not an elitist?

Sometimes I wonder if the voters are the real flip-floppers; constantly changing our minds at the drop of a hat. We did it to Herman Cain last year. He’s accused of sexual harassment and has a boost in fund raising. A few weeks later he’s accused of having an extra-marital affair and he sinks like a stone. Yet, all his support seemed to go to Newt Gingrich who’s on his third wife.

Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves, the voters (regardless of our party lines) what we truly want from our political leaders. Do we want people who are static; who never change no matter what is going on around them? Do we want people who are dynamic; who are always changing, which can make it difficult to know what to expect?

Personally, I think that the best thing to do is strip away the extremes from the issues. It shouldn’t be right or left. It should be right or wrong. You don’t have to want to own a gun to think people have a right to have one. You don’t have be for abortion to believe a woman have the right to choose to have one or not.

I can be a flip-flopper too. I change my mind when something new comes around. Everyone have. We shouldn’t look to our leaders and expect that the blinders stay on, otherwise they get side-blinded, and then we complain, “why didn’t you see this coming?!”