Flip Flopping
Posted in Politics by George
For some reason, I was thinking about John Kerry while I was taking a shower today (OK, that doesn’t sound weird) and I was recalling all of the criticisms that he was a “flip-flopper.” In other words, people were implying that a good presidential candidate can’t “flip-flop” on issues.
Now, the flip-flopping that Kerry did is sort of complicated, and doesn’t fit the type I’m going to mention. But flip-flopping in general on issues isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The flip-flopping I am referring to is being in favor of one side of an issue at one point in time, then later, changing one’s mind.
I think this is a good thing because it shows someone can be open minded. Many politicians today refuse to change their minds because it is perceived as “defeat” on an issue. But really, having the ability to change one’s mind when presented with evidence on the opposing side of an issue is a great asset. For instance, when the US invaded Iraq, and we thought there were Weapons of Mass Destruction there, it seemed like a good idea at the time, at least from an my perspective (I won’t comment on intelligence issues, because I don’t know much about them). But as time has gone on, things have looked worse and worse, and Bush has refused to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, staying in Iraq might not be the best solution out there.
I’m not saying whether or not the US should be in Iraq, I’m just trying to use an example of a leader who doesn’t seem to reconsider. Another example is global warming. Both sides of the debate have become very polarized, so much that it seems like environmentalists refuse to acknowledge any studies by skeptics, and vice versa.
Flip flopping is how we take advantage of the gifts created by freedom of speech. We shouldn’t condemn a candidate for public office because they have an open mind.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Absolutely. I have two things to go along with your point. First, a similar debate to the one about the existence of global warming is the “debate” between evolutionists and fundamentalist Christians. Extremists on both sides refuse to even listen to arguments on the other side, and a each side develops a dogmatic and emotionally-based bond to their side’s opinion. This leads into the second point, that isn’t it possible for both sides to shed light on different parts of the same truth? Could it be possible that evolution does not disprove that God exists, or could it be possible that evolution is another way of looking at how God has worked? I feel like science is asking the question, “how?”, whereas Christianity is asking the question, “why?” I know I talk about this a lot, but it’s just a pet peeve of mine.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Scientists who believe in evolution don’t often argue that it disproves that the existence of God. They simply show that evidence shows that evolution theory is solid.
Some people who believe in the bible are threatened by the theory of evolution since it contracts a literal interpreation of the bible and they make the leap that evolutionists are against the bible.
March 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I agree 100%, Steve. There are some people out there, fortunately, who are able to believe in God and evolution/science/etcetera and that is fantastic. But there are plenty on both sides of the debate who won’t even look at someone that believes something they do not.
Anonymous, the scientists you are referring to are the ones in the middle. There are many scientists, as well, who point to evolutionary evidence as a disproof of God… just as there are plenty of fundamentalists Christians who point to God as a disproof of evolution.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution look at data and interpret it. The data supports the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation onto how humans and other species developed. The Theory of Evolution does not explain why the universe was created or other metaphysical aspects that religion tries to provide answers.
Proponents of the theory of evolution ridicule those who want to teach intelligent design as science in schools, but that isn’t the same as attempting to disprove God exists. Scientist find it insulting that something as flimsy as intelligent design should be taught in science courses. But this is another debate and I didn’t intend to get on it when I decide to post another comment.
When I was going over Sunday opinion pieces, this one article seemed timely.
I think it can be argued that at least two of the examples cited were not really flip flops but that is a little technical.
Beware the politician who won’t flip-flop
Great presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt — changed their positions when it was appropriate.
By Bruce J. Schulman, BRUCE J. SCHULMAN, a professor of history at Boston University, is the author of “The Seventies.”
April 1, 2007
IN AMERICAN politics, the flip-flop can be fatal.
In 2004, for instance, President Bush dramatically transformed the voters’ view of his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, by assailing him for changing positions on issues that were “fundamental,” the kinds of things that “you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts.”
“You cannot lead,” Bush said, “if you send mixed messages. There must be certainty from the U.S. president.”
For the rest click