Matthew Piccolo
Staff Writer
In the past few years, flip-flops have been a common topic of discussion. No, not the kind you wear to Zuma Beach, but the political variety. Both sides of the aisle have pointed fingers at each other with accusations of flip-flopping on key issues. Most notably, in the 2004 presidential elections, critics lambasted Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for approving the war in Iraq resolution but then later becoming one of its major critics. In fact, the stigma attached to Kerry’s perceived lack of resolve may have led to his demise.
Americans are now meticulously scrutinizing the statements and voting records of all 2008 hopefuls but are specifically critical of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Mitt Romney. Allegations of chameleon-like stances transforming for political expediency abound.
In 1999, McCain supported upholding Roe v. Wade, but he wants the courts to overturn it. Like Kerry, Clinton supported the war in Iraq in 2002 but now vehemently opposes it. Most recently, liberals and conservatives have questioned Romney’s reversal from vowing in 1994 to surpass Ted Kennedy’s efforts to promote gay rights to his steadfast support of a federal marriage amendment. They have also charged Romney with flip-flopping on abortion and gun rights.
A politician who vacillates frequently between divergent views is either too confused to lead a nation or values popularity over principle. Either attribute is a liability to our country. In a world of escalating uncertainty, resolute leaders are valuable assets to our national security and stability. Americans want to know where their elected officials stand.
And yet, political flip-flops are not necessarily bad. Americans don’t want their representatives to be too stubborn. President Bush exemplifies obstinacy. Although Bush has assuming responsibility “for where mistakes have been made” this January, he still has much apologizing to do regarding personal miscalculations and should change the course in Iraq as necessary.
Ideal leaders humbly seek truth and sound policies. They remain firm in their convictions but are prepared to explore other paths. New information that sheds light on important issues constantly emerges. It is only responsible to seek new and accurate information and adapt policy to it.
When truthful information causes Bush, Kerry, Clinton, McCain, Romney or anyone else to experience a sincere change of heart on any issue, they should modify their opinions and actions accordingly.
Numerous politicians have experienced drastic changes of heart, the most prominent of whom was Ronald Reagan. Not long before his rise to the governorship, he was a long-time Democrat and labor union leader. After studying American history and the free market theories of Friedrich Hayek, he was convinced that communism and socialism were detrimental to American society. After WWII, he joined the GOP and became a spokesman for General Electric delivering rousing free-enterprise speeches around the nation in the 1950s. By the 1960s, Reagan’s course was set to be one of the greatest advocates of low taxes and small government in U.S. history. Reagan converted not for political expediency but for a sincere change in ideology founded on what, in his eyes, appeared to be truthful evidence. Winston Churchill also switched parties— twice, Tory to Whig and back.
We should allow, and even encourage, all politicians to change their stance on any issue or their party whenever new, accurate information emerges to them. Those whose views are eternally petrified are unwise and unfit to lead the country. Flip-floppers should be capable of justifying their transformation through reasonable explanation, but we should offer them that opportunity.
The trick is to identify which politicians have experienced honest changes of heart and which are pandering to political expediency and popularity. Perhaps, only the politicians themselves know what is written in their hearts.
03-01-2007