Quantcast

The Flip Side of Flip-Flopping

September 23, 2008

The economy has brought the dire state of the American financial
markets into the public’s consciousness with sharp focus-along with the
presidential candidates’ positions on the issue.

When insurance megacorporation AIG requested $85 million in taxpayer
bailouts, John McCain stood firmly against it, saying “We cannot have
the taxpayers bail out AIG or anyone else.” For nearly three decades,
Senator McCain has been loudly and proudly against market regulation;
as he told the “Wall Street Journal” in March, “I’m always for less
regulation.”

Yet the federal government did bail out AIG, and within days McCain
changed his position, defending not only the Wall Street bailout but
also calling for more market regulation to prevent future collapses.
This seems like a prudent, if painful position. But was that an
infamous “flip-flop,” in political speak?

Politicians have made a pastime of calling each other “flip-floppers.” Senator John Kerry, during his presidential bid,
was widely ridiculed as a flip-flopper for his infamous statement, “I
actually did vote for the $87 billion [troop funding bill] before I
voted against it.”

Such zingers make for memorable political theater and pop culture
sound bites, but gloss over a fair question: What’s wrong with changing
your mind?

Americans want to know where candidates stand on issues; they want a decisive leader
who sticks by his or her convictions. That’s all well and good, but
where’s the flexibility? Do we really want leaders whose positions on
important issues are engraved in stone, facts be damned?

Obviously no one wants a president whose opinions and policies
change with the wind, but the political and economic world is
constantly changing. Policies and positions that work well at one time,
under one set of circumstances, might be misguided or even devastating
later on. Intelligent people can and do change their minds as
circumstances and facts change. Perhaps the most important quality the
president can have is good judgment, and that requires a mind open to
alternatives. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “A foolish consistency is
the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and
philosophers and divines.”

In the case of market regulation, there is certainly reason to
reconsider the long-standing deregulation policies that helped create
the economic crisis.
While McCain said that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong,”
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared that the U.S. economy was
within days of a “meltdown.”

Is McCain’s sudden support of market regulation a flip-flop, a
convenient political stunt to court voters, or does he really believe
he’s been wrong on the issue for the last quarter-century? It’s not
clear, but in any case no one should be criticized for coming to the
truth, however belatedly. Ultimately, of course, flip-flopping is in
the eye of the beholder (or spin doctor); while I have “advisors,” my
opponent has “cronies” I change my mind after “considered judgment,”
but he “flip-flops.”

Candidates should be able to actually be candid and say, “I was wrong and I changed my mind.” Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. He
wrote about the media and pop culture in his book” Media Mythmakers:
How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us.” His books,
films, and other projects can be found on his website.


Source: imaginova



comments powered by Disqus