It's debate time again, and one of the most commonly used attacks in presidential debates is to call your opponent a flip-flopper. Today I would like to make it known that I find the "flip-floppers" are usually better candidates than their accusers.
Flip-flopping is the derogatory term for a political candidate who has changed their mind on an issue. My question is: what's so bad about changing your mind? If someone were to look at the history of my political opinions, I would be a flip-flopper of the worst kind. So would almost every American voter. If we don't allow ourselves the freedom to change our minds, then what good are we? The best people readily admit their mistakes and immediately change upon recognizing them. Only a fool knowingly sticks to his wrong position just to save face. I admire the candidates who are willing to candidly change their positions when new evidence shows them that they were previously wrong.
Unfortunately, some politicians flip-flop on issues because of lobbyists, and other issues of greed and gain. These are the politicians that flip-flopper accusers would have you believe the accused to be. The problem with this argument is that a politician is just as likely to stay firm to a position because of lobbyists and greed as he is to flip-flop on a position. For instance, Candidate A might be bribed by several different lobbyists over time, and therefore waver back and forth on a position, while Candidate B might be bribed by the same lobbyist for an extended period of time and therefore appear firm in his beliefs. It is therefore important to research your favorite candidate, find out who his lobbyists are, and try to understand why he votes the way he votes. I tend to be more suspicious of the candidate who never changes his opinion on any issue because this indicates he is being bribed to keep those opinions, or he is afraid of political fallout for doing what he thinks is right.
Because flip-flopping indicates corruption no more than it indicates consistency, all it amounts to is an ad-hominem attack (character assassination), and nothing more. The candidate who debates the correctness of platforms rather than trying to build a false impression of his opponent's nature is the candidate who is more likely to have the good nature I would like to see in a leader.
