Since this is an election season, we will hear plenty about flip-flops. If a candidate changes from a position he supports to a position he opposes, then it’s a flip-flop, perhaps even a betrayal. If the candidate changes the other way, then it must represent enlightenment, an ability to learn from experience and adapt to changing circumstances.
For instance, the Sen. John McCain who supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 has evolved into the John McCain who said last week that “in the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” This clearly demonstrates his maturation as a statesman.
You want a flip-flop? There’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which effectively granted immunity to telecommunication companies that helped spy on Americans without a warrant.
Last fall, Sen. Barack Obama said he would support a filibuster against renewing FISA if it included an immunity provision. Then there was the Obama who last month voted for just such a bill. That was a flip-flop because he moved from a position I supported — i.e., that the Fourth Amendment means something — to one I oppose. Other people, though, might see it as a nececessary adjustment in a political system based on compromise.
I liked the John McCain who could opposed torture with clear moral authority. Waterboarding “is a horrible torture technique,” he said, and “People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”
But we are not a better nation because leaders like McCain, who could make us one, don’t. McCain ended up voting against a bill that would have banned waterboarding by American intelligence agencies. Clearly a flip-flop, or maybe even a betrayal.
I felt much the same way about Rep. Mark Udall. Not because he just announced he’d support some offshore drilling after opposing it, but because he, like Obama, voted for the FISA bill. Udall had voted against the Patriot Act. I figured that if he had the backbone to do that, during the clamor of late 2001, then he actually cared about our rights and liberties.
Others might see this not as a flip-flop, but as recognition that there’s a difference between representing one congressional district as opposed to an entire state in the U.S. Senate.
As for his opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer, I thought it was admirable that he promised to serve no more than three terms in the House of Representatives and that he actually kept that promise, unlike Tom Tancredo and Scott McInnis.Then again, we ended up with Marilyn Musgrave in his old seat.
Anyway, it’s weird to see a commercial where Schaffer stands in front of windmills after he voted against incentives for alternate energy sources in 2001. Is he flip-flopping or recognizing new realities?
I’m glad to see that Schaffer opposes Amendment 48, the Colorado ballot initiative that would grant full constitutional protection to zygotes. But how does that opposition square with his 2000 statement that “From the moment of conception, this being is alive.”
When you get right down to it, flip-flopping is our fault. We expect politicians to have steadfast principles, and we also expect them to respond to public opinion. Some do stand by their principles in the face of public opinion. We vote them out of office, and then wait about 65 years to honor them. Just ask Ralph Carr.
Ed Quillen (ed@cozine.com) is a freelance writer, history buff, publisher of Colorado Central Magazine in Salida and frequent contributor to The Post.
