I can just picture the scene. A young campaign aide runs into Bush '04 campaign headquarters, waving a VHS cassette in his hand like a Newsie's early edition. "I got it. I got it," he announces while fumbling with over-excitement to queue it up on the screen. Karl Rove sits, with his stubby arms folded across his chest and a Grinch-who-just-stole-Christmas grin on his porcine face, as he watches a clip of Democratic Nominee John Kerry's inarticulate explanation of his vote on an Iraq War funding bill: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Shouts of "We've got 'im!" erupt throughout the office, and one of the most repeated phrases of the 2004 Presidential Election was born. Kerry was a "flip-flopper".
Since the 2004 election, the dreaded "flip-flopper" stigma has been thrown about to and fro, like a Koosh ball caked in shit, by each of the remaining candidates. The term has become a ubiquitous epithet, a part of our campaign lexicon, and no candidate remains immune. Because it is so universally doled out, one is forced to wonder if it still holds any significance, and if so, what exactly that is. Does it aim to reveal an indecisive character -- the brush with which Senator Kerry was so easily painted -- or some evidence of political pandering? Since all politicians have a library full of statements concerning nuanced legislation, made over the course of political careers that span decades, it seems likely that we could find any number of conflicting quotes. But when do these contradictions exemplify hypocrisy or befuddlement and when do they express a maturation of character or an adaptation of solutions to changing circumstances?
In the original case of John Kerry's "flip-flop", the famous quote above concerned a military spending bill that would provide, amongst many other things, armor for the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's just agree that no one elected to the United States Senate, let alone a decorated veteran, would not "support the troops". So, there must have been some other factor to explain why Senator Kerry would vote for a bill and later vote against. Turned out that the factor was that the first bill, which Kerry voted for, included legislation that would repeal some of the Bush Administration's tax cuts and use that money to help fund the $87 billion. When that language was taken out of the bill, Kerry voted against it. Seems odd that this simple explanation was so deeply buried under a cloud of nonsense that we actually bought into the idea of Kerry as some indecisive shmuck who doesn't support the troops. In fact, this is the whole point of the "flip-flopping" label. It's continued use depends upon our stupidity or the assumption that we the voters won't delve just a hair beneath the surface of the rhetorical con job that goes on every election cycle. The actual indecision on Kerry's part was how his campaign should respond to such a paper-thin attack.
Not much has changed in this regard. When the next president assumes office, he/she will have been on the campaign trail for almost two years, and it isn't, you know, out of the realm of possibilities that their proposals for the war, or the economy, or which shampoo they use will not only change, but must change in order to catch up with changing events and statistics. Yet, at the same time, let's not dismiss the probability that hypocrisy or political pandering remains part and parcel of the election process. Here's a few examples:
- McCain on Bush's tax cuts in 2001: “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” And again, two years later, McCain said, "I don't remember ever in the history of warfare when we cut taxes."
- McCain, since February 2008 when he "voted to continue Mr. Bush’s tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and other tax breaks in a $70 billion Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act": “American businesses and investors need a stable and predictable tax policy to continue contributing to the growth of the economy.”
- Obama on Illegal Immigration: "In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should 'crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.' He replied 'Oppose.' In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that 'we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.'
- Clinton on NAFTA: "In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that 'on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America.' She now says she has 'long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA' and advocates a 'time out' from similar trade agreements.
And trust me, the above are just a few of the examples that one could cite for any of these candidates. So what does it say about their "flip-flopper" status? Absolutely nothing. It's a nonsense term carrying as little true meaning as any of the political rhetoric and sophistry that flood the headlines and news programs. So, since neither the candidates nor the media are going to stop using the term, we the voters need to take advantage. Every time you hear Obama or Clinton call McCain a "flip-flopper" on tax cuts or you hear how Obama will "flip-flop" on
his plans to withdraw our soldiers from Iraq, immediately flag the issue and take a minute to google it, read an article or two, and be on your way. I promise you, you'll be a better voter for it. And, more importantly, we'll all be better citizens for it.
Sometimes these accusations will reveal the hypocrisy of the "flip-flopper" and other times the empty rhetoric of the "flip-flop-ee". We should be against the term "flip-flop" when too easily used by politicians to obfuscate a candidate's position on a nuanced issue. Then again, maybe we shouldn't be against it, cause it can be a good signal for us to pay more attention to important policies. So, I guess I was against the term before I was for the term. And that's why I believe you should vote for me as the next President of the United States of America. God bless.
More To Look At:
And Presidential hypocrisy as only Jon Stewart could present it:
You need to be a member of We Op-Ed - A Community for Political News and Civilized Debate to add comments!
Join this network