Flippin’ the Word

“Liberal!” “Washington insider!” “Draft dodger!” Every election has its slur of choice – this year the resonant epithet is “flip-flopper.” After its debut in the 2004 cycle it quietly retreated, now forging a comeback as the most loaded, most deadly slur hurled from one campaign to another. It’s a foregone conclusion that this phase is so vituperatively vitriolic - but is it? And, since the answer is apparently, resoundingly, yes - then why? That’s one pregnant query I’ve posed, and the answer illuminates that which is so off about American politics.

Changing one’s mind, if one changes it often and with easy abandon, reeks of a certain malodorous flightiness. After all, “fickle” is a pejorative. Undergoing a change in position, though, has not always been synonymous with flightiness. Used to be, a careful analysis leading to an expanded understanding of an issue could precipitate a change of heart; that is, introspection and education might cause a flip-flop - and that was ok, admirable even. Actually, it’s still ok to flip-flip - except in the political arena. Why has politics been cut off from introspection, from intellect, from thought - and to what effect?

So cellular is the “flip-flop” slur to political liturgy that I imagine that campaigns employ staffers whose sole raison d’etre is the seeking and selling of an opponent’s mismatched voting record. A pair of juxtaposed votes, viewed through the impugning lens of the campaigns, the media, and the public, signals instability. Rather than the more appropriate designation of obstinacy, “flip-flopping” points to a lack of conviction. Odd, considering that the current pop culture decision-making fad sanctifies open-mindedness, experience, and compromise. We preach flexibility to each other, but we demand that elected officials be stubborn and myopic.

Now, it probably seems naïve to attribute politicans’ shifting positions to introspection and deep analysis. Indeed, it’s unlikely, maybe even impossible, that candidates’ stances change because of a genuine shift in belief. Certainly, that’s not the implication of the “flip-flop” slur. The insinuation implicit in that phrase is that a candidate bends to the will of the latest poll, that he can’t stomach the conviction required to stand firm against what’s hip today, that he doesn’t care strongly about anything except his own electability. Of course candidates fret over their political viability! That’s precisely the rationale behind the democratic system: Those who get elected are the candidates who vote according to the will of the people – and the will of the people is fluid. Shouldn’t we like candidates who reflect the people’s positions? During a recent debate, one of the politicians climbed upon his high horse, proclaiming obstinately that he was against the Iraq war when the polls showed favor for it. That was a well-received statement, I imagine. People said, “now there’s a guy who’s not afraid to say what he believes, even when it’s unpopular.” Indeed, and that’s entirely contrary to the tenets of democracy. We don’t elect candidates because of their stellar judgment; we elect them to enact our judgment. You know, to represent us. Represent – as in “representative democracy.”

Chastising a politician for seeking guidance from a poll is not so much a punishment for the politician as it is a rebuke of the poll participants themselves. We cannot criticize politicians for flip-flopping - that is the essence of their jobs. If politics feels flip-floppy, we should perhaps look within. What we might see is a nation shaky in its convictions. What we might see is a nation unsure of what it stands for, falling for anything. What we might see is a nation of flip-floppers.