by Thompson Kellett

Created on: July 17, 2008

Of late, much has been made of candidates "flip-flopping" on issues. In American political jargon a "flip-flop" is a radical shift in policy that has been unanticipated by the political supporters of that candidate and a policy shift that runs contrary to the reason the candidate initially garnered the backing of a given constituency. The phrase immediately invokes a sense of betrayal and elicits an almost visceral response from a public that perceives the government as untrustworthy and the candidates as individuals who pander to small groups within society only when it is politically expedient.

Most recently, the republican camp has been throwing the phrase around at every change in policy nuance made within the democratic candidates policy positions. As a political tactic it seems to be effective at rallying the Republican base and at most causing concern in the activist portion of the Democratic Party.

This election cycle is one of the longest cycles in recent memory and as a result the candidates have definitely had evolutionary policy positions. Facing an alienated conservative activist base dominated by the neo-con segment of the party, McCain has endorsed political policies and principles more in keeping with the current administration than those advocated by him on the Senate floor. Likewise, Obama after facing an incredibly effective contest for the democratic nomination has been forced to adopt some of the policies of Hillary Clinton.

These shifts are not "flip-flops"; they are examples of how the American system works. Government policy is evolutionary and adaptable and is not static.

As Americans, we do not elect platforms into office. We elect people. Those people who the populace believes at the time of election will best serve the interests of the nation. The reason we do this is so that our political leaders will have the ability to adapt to the changing role of the United States and navigate the craft of government through difficult situations.

Often as Americans we decry the lack of statesmanship in government. States people are able to form consensus from a disparate group of opinions to lead the government in a direction that betters the common good. Unless the policy shift is tidal and a total rejection of values espoused by any given candidate it is not a true "flip-flop". I want my candidates to be willing to adapt their ideas to a given situation.

The current administration's rigid adherence to policies that run contrary to the national interest or the will of the American people exemplify the need of our political leaders to have the ability to be flexible, to understand compromise, and to explain the decisions they make to populace.

The abuse of the descriptive phrase "flip-flop" by the political party of the current administration is indicative of politics vs. statesmanship. This constant chorus of Flips and flops does not benefit the American democratic model, it undermines it.

Candidates of both parties have used the phrase since the Nixon administration and instead of elevating the national dialogue, it has only served to dumb down our elected officials, instilling within each the fear that compromise and statesmanship runs contrary to the will of their varying constituencies. As a result, we face a government divided between two inflexible ideologies that have become ineffective at providing the key services required of government.

Learn more about this author, Thompson Kellett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.