Flip-Flopping in the World

By | March 2, 2007

I believe flip flopping is just a natural result of the passage of time and the maturing of a candidate. Everyone makes mistakes, and as people mature it is reasonable that they may change their mind. For example, all those that voted for the war prior on the basis of WMD’s could claim that by learning the fact that there was no serious fact they may now feel opposed to this war. This is a flip-flop, but not an opportunistic flip-flop. opportunistic flip flops do exist, and they are a problem. However I don’t believe a voter should get too mad over opportunistic flip-floppers. There is no evidence that modern politicians are more prone to make a flip flop than in past years. In fact, since the beginning of politics, politicians have been parts to large organizations, whether religions, industrial, or social, very seldom was a politician truly independent, a large percent of the time his actions are representative the organization the politician stands for. Voters need to accept that politicians will flip flop, however it is no reason to lose faith in a candidate or become a political hermit. It is necessary to look at the backing of the candidate and decide where their interests lie and where your interests lie, by doing this you can choose the right candidate. A voter can look at the unions, businesses, and other major social/cultural institutions that support and more importantly, fund the candidate. The heart lies within the wallet. If your interests overlap with those of several organizations supporting the candidate than that may be a good vote for you. For instance, if you are against the war, a politician funded by businesses that want an end to war, or social organization seeking the end to war, than it is relatively safe to assume the candidate will end the war as soon as logistically possible.

The biggest problem with flip-floppers is the adverse effect they have on the psyche of the modern voters. Voters, especially new voters become overwhelmed by the politicians and their ideologies. They come to distrust the process because they feel betrayed by the actions of politicians. Upon this happening, undeserved pressure is placed on the candidate to remain steady, or else suffer the consequences. A politician at that point is dominated by his contingency in a bad way. The voters should control their candidates, but they should not prevent the politician from following his/her natural course. Because once a politician become an artificial puppet of fear, we can no longer trust his/her future action and when he/she may change. The population could consistently reelect a politician only to learn that he may not side with their majority opinions. It is necessary to learn when a politician has done this so the population can elect a new representative. However the pressure they place on the system to follow certain taboo rules prevents the population from knowing has the politicians views change and develop. For as stated in the beginning, a person matures and his opinions will change. Therefore it is necessary to know those changes and how frequently the politician may change, so we can better make our choices. By putting this pressure to remain behind one position we cannot know the true character of the politician.

This post is about flip-flopping in general and does not specifically relate to any one person or situation. The example about the Iraq war is just an example and does not represent any specific opinion. Leave a comment with your opinion, and I shall present mine to the extent required to answer.

Leave Your Comment

Your email will not be published or shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>