The Art of Flip-Flopping
Barack Obama is being accused by left and right alike as being flip-flopper. John McCain is also being accused by left and right alike as being a flip-flopper. Since flip-flopping is the ultimate evil in partisan politics, and using the standards that fans of either candidate are putting for the other, one thing is becoming obvious: neither candidate is getting elected president this November.
Riiiight.
Whatever you call it: moving to the other side, returning to the person’s true position, or flip-flopping, election cycles are fraught with appeals to one set of people for the primaries, followed by a move to the opposite direction to try and get more widespread support during the general election.
Barack Obama, for example, is said to be moving toward the center in an attempt to appeal to conservatives, moderates, evangelicals, etc. Likewise, John McCain is said to be moving rightward in order to make amends with many of the same people. Yet, the recent vocal disappointment seems to be more with Obama than McCain. I’d argue that the disappointment with both is there; it’s just that Obama supporters are being a lot louder about it.
If you believe some on the left, like Ariana Huffington, this move to the center by Obama is nothing more or less than heresy. She, and others of the same mind, argue that Obama is going against his “change in Washington” message, that he’s just like any other politician. Are they forgetting his run for the Senate in Chicago, where he seemed to be a pretty tough rival? Look, Obama is trying to get elected here. He’s essentially the underdog; not so much because he’s unpopular, but because he really isn’t as well known as McCain. Yet, Obama gets accused by conservatives as being an elite liberal, then when he tries to appeal to them, to try and present himself as listening to “the average American” he’s still an elitist (I’d argue that by definition, anyone who’s “just another politician” is automatically an elitist)! Some conservatives, on the other hand, while perhaps not as vocal in their disappointment toward his move, continue to brand him as a paternalistic liberal.
Andrew Sullivan has been arguing since his shift began that Obama is a pragmatist. I’m inclined to agree. I’d argue that Obama can still be an across-the-aisle, all-inclusive guy, whatever his positions are, while still trying to appeal to the widest possible audience.
Then there’s John McCain. If you believe some on the right, like Michelle Malkin, his attempts to appeal to Independents and Democrats on issues like the environment, campaign finance, and illegal immigration are nothing or less than heresy. While McCain has always been perceived as a maverick, he is still overwhelmingly a conservative on most issues. McCain is labeled a liberal by the far right and the third term of Bush by the left. The man can’t catch a break, no matter where he is on the positions.
Yet, McCain’s movement around the political spectrum doesn’t seem to get as big of a fuss from conservatives as Obama’s does from liberals. I think this is because, from my perspective at least, liberals are a lot noisier than conservatives on these things. Look at Joe Lieberman. There’s a lot more call from liberals for him to clean up his act than McCain gets from conservatives. Generally, I think more mainstream liberals are weary of Joe Lieberman than mainstream conservatives are of John McCain. Also, it seems that McCain has changed his positions more gradually than Obama has; he’s done is over a number of years rather than within weeks. A show of inexperience on Obama’s part, perhaps. Yet, it does not change the fact that both have changed their stance on many issues. Anybody who denies this is frankly deluding themselves. Sorry, but it needs to be said.
So, yes, both Obama and McCain have gone to the center while still trying to appeal to the base. Why do they get so much flack for it? TMV’s Joe Gandelman thinks he knows why:
In other words: there are intense pressures in today’s America to shove centrist and independent voters to choose between joining a political “sports team” that is either on the right or left, to embrace it’s total agenda and indentify with it.
And if you don’t? Then you’re portrayed somehow as being part of the “mushy middle” — unless, of course you take a stand (and then it’s said you’re really a liberal Democrat or really a conservative Republican). REALITY CHECK: Most centrist and independent voters do not resemble blank-expressioned, neutral CSPAN hosts.
I think Gandelman’s reasoning has merit. I have also noticed the tendency to demonize anyone who dares try and take a centrist platform during their time in office or on the campign trail. People like Huffington and Malkin are quick to label anyone who tries for a centrist approach as being too weak to choose a side. This attempt to partisanize everything is frankly kind of offending to me. It’s why I became an Independent (full disclosure: I was briefly a Democrat when I first registered to vote, and I describe myself as a centrist who’s a little to the left, though I am quite willing to look at things case-by-case). I was disgusted by what I saw as an attempt by members of Congress from both sides to make every issue a partisan thing. It’s why I like both Obama and McCain, who were my favorites to get their respective nominations. Whatever their flaws, I think both are quite willing to listen to the other side before making up their minds.
In the end, both candidates are going to end up breaking someone’s heart, as Andrew Sullivan has predicted. No matter how much someone promises to change Washington, or how much someone is going to remain with the status quo, a candidate for president can do neither if they’re not elected to office.
Author’s note: I don’t believe that being partisan on some issues is a bad thing. It is okay for a politician to hold strong beliefs on issues. However, I also feel the job of Congress is to at least try and come to a compromise sometimes, rather than engage in the do-nothing partisan impasse we sometimes see stretch on for weeks at a time.
Mmmm, sweet sweet pragmatism.
You feelings, and political history mirror mine perfectly, and
and …. you managed to express my sentiment quite elegantly. (sorry for the split post)
While McCain has fliped on a few issues - some of them can be considered evolutionary changes in position - some are just McCain being dishonest. McCain was dishonest in the primary when he abandoned his call for "comprehensive immigration reform" when the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans told Congress a bonafied "NO" to amnesty. Now that he has the primary secured he has back on the amnesty kick. I am not sure that I can pull the lever for him
Both are flip-floppers…they’re politicians. The question is one of relative degree.
A few (? random responses). From HuffPo:
“If you believe some on the left, like Ariana Huffington, this move to the center by Obama is nothing more or less than heresy. She, and others of the same mind, argue that Obama is going against his “change in Washington” message, that he’s just like any other politician.” so if I read that correctly anything less than liberal politics is “politics as usual”. Hmmm.
Instead of “elitist liberal” can I just call Obama a “liberal”?
Chuck, I don’t beleive McCain ever disavowed aspects of his plan that some would call “amnesty”. I beleive he came away from that battle concluding that from that point forward, he had to always mention “secure borders”. Is that a flip-flop or a pragmatist realizing that unless I address “border security” no immigration reform has a snowballs chance.
michael, You do have to admit that Obama’s change of heart on campaign dollars was a bit more than “running to the center”
also, the Leibermann/McCain comparison doesn’t wash. While I admire both, I understand that Joe is a Democrat and I’d expect fellow Democrats to be upset if he actively campaigned with the Republican Party nominee. I’m pretty sure McCain is not supporting the Democratic Party nominee.
I like moderate/centrists. While I’d certainly say that McCain is essentially a conservative, he certainly has a TRACK RECORD of reaching across the aisle. Sen. Obama has no such record. I rather vote on intent AND action. In spite of what the Senator from Illinois has said before, in this case his centrist words “are just words”.
Finally, if your campaign is focused on the “moral high ground” you are going to have to expect a vigorous scrutiny of said high ground.
The issue here is one of perception and deception. McCain campaigned as who he was.
Obama and Hillary Clinton were considered mirror images of each other and therefore everyone assumed that Barak Obama was pretty far left OR Hillary Clinton was a moderate.
Well we know that Hillary is not a moderate so the assumption is that they were both pretty far left of center.
Thus Obama was seen as a far left candidate. Even his record seemed to indicate a far left lean. The perception was there, even though Barak Obama did actually try to throw out some moderate ideals to appeal to disenfranchised republican voters.
In the end the deception came when Obama wore the mantle of far left because it got him votes while speaking in subdued tones about moderate ideals. This is why the left is up in arms now over Barak Obama.
George Bush and "Read my lips…….NO new taxes" Ring a bell?
Think thats bad. He just announced that his hard core pull out of Iraq is now put on hold.
Lord is the antiwar going to angry over this one.
Chuck: Indeed. I didn’t touch on this, but it could be why he gets less flack. Yet, even some of the gradual changes might still be flip-flops.
Chris: I don’t see how you came out with this, given my praise of McCain below that section. As for his campaign’s financing, it’s not really a political position (unless you talk about the inner workings of the system), so it’s not a left, center, or right thing for me. As for the McCain/Lieberman comparison, I was making the point that both get demonized unfairly by their respective bases, to varying extents, because of their non-party-line views.
RRRocks: So McCain moving his position to the right to try and reach the base isn’t deception? (I don’t think it is, just a necessary evil). If we’re talking about how people are campaigning, we must still remember that he’s still campaigning. I don’t try and make an argument that Obama actually is a moderate. He’s clearly not; though, like McCain, he probably does have a few issues he is moderate on.
Well its all perspective.
Obama clearly campaigned on the antiwar theme.
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Now even that is being nuanced and it is the antiwar that represents about 10 percent of his vote. Mabey 15 percent. Had they seen this coming. They would no doubt have picked up Hillary as their candidate and Obama would be history.
This is a freakin big deception on his part and its going to grow worse over the next few days as people grasp the severity of the lies that have just been inflicted on them.
Lies of Omission are lies none the less. He forgot to tell them…….opps I envision being in Iraq for years to come. Opps
Dateline July 4th, 2008.
Barak Obama just landed another bombshell. He discusses his vote for the Fisa measure coming up and why he SUPPORTS it ag myobama.com
HI Chris, do you remember after the people spoke so loudly on the amnesty issue McCain backed down from the amnesty issue and in the debates said that he heard the American people and that the lesson has been learned?…. thus indicating that he wasn’t going to push for amnesty? He was asked this over and over and this was his message. It was politically worded to have a plausible escape - but inst it McCain that coined the term straight talk express? Now he is outspoken for amnesty again, which was not his position in the debates. So in my view that is a reversal and a flip-flop and I am confident that my position holds merit. In the case where McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, even though McCain had voted for tax cuts previously, McCain voted against them because he believed that they were too steep. History has proven that the tax cuts helped economic growth and greatly raised revenue to the treasury as even the wealthiest of Americans paid more money in real dollars after the tax cuts than before. McCain, after seeing he was wrong about the impact of the tax cuts, adjusted his position and under these circumstances that is clearly an evolutionary change in his position that took years for him to realize.
Chuck, just further proof that both are flip-flopping for political gain. So, all the finger pointing at Obama is unwarranted, because McCain is doing it, too. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but finger pointing at one person for what someone else is also doing and not getting any flack is a double standard.
Obama clarified a long time ago that his approach to withdrawal would be subject to changes on the ground and the recommendations of military commanders. To demand that any candidate hold a "pure" position that remains fixed and immutable regardless of changes in the factual situation and the recommendations of experts is just plain stupid. There is no gentle way to put it. Anyone, regardless of party, who seeks to govern should be expected to change their position in accordance with new information and advise from experts. It’s not lying or flip-flopping. It’s called "learning" and "adjusting". Some partisan types should try it some time.
Let’s reverse the partisan tables and look at it from that perspective. Let’s say that it is 2010 and President McCain is faced with a major invasion by North Korea of South Korea. The South Korean Army turns out to be surprisingly brittle and the situation is worsened by the threat of Chinese support. South Korea calls upon the U.S. to honor its long-standing commitments and come to its aid. The only way to generate the required number of troops, however, is to draw-down in Iraq to redeploy. Would you condemn President McCain for “flip-flopping” or “lying” if he adjusted his position to the new reality that confronted him?
If not, you can’t legitimately condemn Obama for his willingness to adjust his position regarding Iraq after hearing from his military commanders about changes in the situation on the ground there.
I mostly agree with Jason; however, the real problem I see with Obama potentially deciding in favor of leaving troops for a longer period in Iraq is that he’d basically have to admit that he was wrong about the surge- and that pretty much neutralizes the idea that his supporters have that he has superior judgment due to his initial opposition to the Iraq invasion. Basically it would be Obama 1- McCain 1, with each being able to claim that they correctly predicted the course of events in each case.
Barak Obama gave two press conferences today in a 4 hour period trying to clarify his positions on Iraq.
There must be others besides me believing that he is flip flopping and that is quite troublesome. I’m pretty sure he’s not responding to me.
Hi Jason, Yes indeed Obama did start to change his rhetoric some time ago on Iraq just as you said …BUT his rhetoric would change back from time to time depending on what group he was in front of. Just two weeks ago he was on the pull out in 2009 kick in one speech. To be honest I fear for my country right now, both of these men are so flawed and such "politicians". I think Obama is a Jimmy Carter clone policy wise who will say anything to get elected and would be worse for the country in the short term. But we did get Ronald Reagan after Jimmy Carter. I believe that the GOP needs a rebirth and it needs to be a deadly serious rebirth not just a rhetorical one. That wont likely happen with a McCain presidency.
This poll says people think both candidates flip-flop.
Meh, I feel dirty linking to that, particularly after my first entry here at Poligazette, but it’s so close to even on the statistic, I’m hard pressed to say this particular poll is biased.
You hear that, Gallup and Rasmussen? I want a poll on this!
RRRocks: I’ve thought for some time that Obama isn’t seriously going to pull out all troops right away, no matter what anybody thinks. He’s too pragmatic for that. Thus why there’s been no, "Read my lips. Troops out on first day." from him, because he’s not going to do it.
Michael I agree with that.
But the point for those on the far right who are furious right now is that he said that he is going to end the war in Iraq and come home.
Today he said he was going to tell his generals to WIN the war in Iraq.
How are you going to win the war and come home at the same time? There are just too many bizarre discrepancies from him for me to be comfortable with him.
Sorry I meant for those on the far left.
RRRocks, do you have a link to that "we’re going to win" thing? Everywhere I’m looking, even Fox News, has the "we may refine the plan" quotes.
Chuck, any speaker worth a spit will emphasize different parts of his message according to the audience. That isn’t "flip-flopping" either.
My point about the necessity of adapting to new information in order to be a successful governor of anything remains unrefuted. It is not "flip-flopping" to adjust to new information. It is intelligent. And demanding that a candidate remain mired to a position just to avoid being called on "flip flopping" is a sign of a massive dysfunction in political culture that is NOT the fault of the candidate. It the fault of a stupid voter.
Chuck, any speaker worth a spit will emphasize different parts of his message according to the audience. That isn’t "flip-flopping" either. - There is tailoring the message and than there is wiping your feet on it. Lets put it this way. IF you asked the group he talked to about the slow steady withdrawal with - and than asked the leftist group who he said pull out in 2009 too - odds are if you put the youtube video clips side by side for them they are going to have one word in mind - and that word is flip-flopper. You are free to believe what you want, but most Americans hold their children to a higher standard of truth telling than that, so they wont like that in their presidents.
Barak Obama flip flopped on public funding because he knew he could take in way more money then he ever dreamed. Seems a flip flop to me. But your right the facts changed. So did his principals.
Barak Obama flip flopped on FISA. First he was opposed to amnesty to telecoms then he indicated he would vote for it with amnesty with telecoms. Then when the firestorm broke out he had the vote delayed or more precisely the democratic party big wigs delayed it for him so they could figure out what to do. He did an apparent flip flop on not only his position but his principals. But your right the facts did change.
This is the anger that is being generated by Barak Obama’s flip flopping on issues. It is not only changing his mind but it is assulting his moral high ground road that HE chose to take and that his faithful followed. The anger is not that he changed his mind. The anger is that he changed his principals as the political winds blow.
The fact that this is happening are facts. The press is seizing upon them. The press is building a case as has been the rest of those opposed to Barak Obama that enough is not known about this man and that now we have evidence that even his principals are subject to change when the facts change. That is unacceptable in any politician and It is NOT the fault of stupid voters.
Anyone who wants to call an unprincipled "flip-flop" on the public finance issue will get no complaint from me. I think FISA and guns are less problematic, mainly because Obama is meeting the demand put forward by his critics that he show evidence of reaching across the aisle for compromise and I think concocting catch-22s is an abusive way to argue, but whatever.
But I will continue to call BS on criticisms of his statements regarding Iraq. He said all along that his position was contingent upon changes in facts on the ground and the advice of military commanders. And such a practice is a mark of sanity in governance, not something to criticize or discourage.
Jason I do not disagree with you. I think there is some unfair criticism going on regarding Barak Obama. But I sorta have to snicker at that and say……."Gee imagine that."
However. My driving concern this election cycle is that in 2003 we did not question GWB. We let him slide. I refuse to do that this election cycle. I ask hard questions. I dig deep and I find as much about what is said and nuanced and then I report it. The conclusions I reach are given to the people so they can respond, question, or disregard.
That said you might want to consider this. This was his publish reason for agreeing to accept the fisa legislation.
There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
This has been a cornerstone of his speeches and it has stirred the farther left then normal supporters into a tizzy over Bush and Fisa. They had a champion who was going to nail Bush and his cronies for trampling on the constitutions and they were going to get their retribution against major corporations which they detest.
He fed them, coddled to them and made them believe he was one of them and then……………This.
Flip flop. Not only a flip flop but a big flip flop. I believe personally he made the right call but his supporters on the left do not. This is his problem and it is why the press and bloggers continue to question where he is coming from as do I.
Jason;
quote:"Obama is meeting the demand put forward by his critics that he show evidence of reaching across the aisle for compromise and I think concocting catch-22s is an abusive way to argue, but whatever. "
Agreed, and we should have the courage to encourage him to consider alternative positions as he gains more facts but:
1) couldn’t he have done more of that before he began his run for the Presidency (to reasssure us that it isn’t just about the campaign)
2) is this adjusting as he learns the facts or is it on the job training.