• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why is changing your mind bad?

Spindrift

Time Person of the Year, 2006
Spindrift
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
19,246
Location
Right here!
You often see the term "flip-flop" tossed about usually in a derogatory remark about a politician. I just don't understand why changing one's mind is considered a bad thing.

You might attack a politician who changes their mind just to pander or curry favor. However changing ones mind when one comes to the conclusion that their previously held position is not valid is the sign of reasonable person. Clinging to ones position come hell or high water is just irrational. And clinging to a position simply because you don't want to appear to have "flip-flopped" is ludicrous.

Someone who has the ability to evolve and grow is far more worthy of holding office than someone unwilling to bend or change with the times. If Hitler had flip-flopped on the Jewish question, I don't think that would have been a bad thing.
 
Two things, changing position on an issue is good if it is the result of consideration of new information and bad if it shows the candidate or politician is simply telling the voter what they want to hear.

Second thing is the sheeple are easily swayed by slogan ads. You can make everyone who ever reconsidered an issue look like a vote panderer by just using the term, "flip-flop", as a negative description.

Even if the candidate explains the reason for the changed position, the sheeple can be swayed differently by a carefully cherry picked quote again making the person look bad.

The key is to reply to the accusation with a 'slogan' type response that doesn't allow any cherry picking.

For example, Kerry's infamous, "I voted for it before I voted against it" (or however he worded it) was ripe for being exploited. He should have said something like, "There were [x] number of provisions in that bill and the version I voted against contained an unacceptable provision." His actual explanation was too long, too involved, as were many of his speeches.

Much of the changed positions from these politicians however, I'm sorry to say, is voter pandering. Maybe if that weren't so common the charge of flip flopping would be harder to make.
 
Last edited:
Its changing their mind just to pander or curry favor when your opponent does it. When you do it, it is a rational change based on additional evidence.

Of course, only liberals ever do this.
 
If their changed position disagrees with your own, they are flip-floppers and panderers, because obviously, the position they truly believe in has to be the right one (i.e., your own).

If their changed position agrees with your own, they are open-minded, because it takes a closed mind to agree with you and an open mind to disagree.

In the end I think the real assumption is... if you change your mind in the course of a campaign, it's probably disingenuous (McCain on taxes, Romney on abortion, Giuliani on immigration, Clinton on Iraq). If you change your mind before a campaign, it's probably genuine (McCain on evolution).
 
One trait I deeply admire in people is the ability to change their mind, provided they aren't arbitrary or capricious about it.

Even if they change their opinion to one I disagree with, I will give them a little credit.

"Flip-flopping" to me is changing your mind repeatedly or suddenly just to win public opinion points. Flip-floppers suck.
 
Last edited:
Flip flop, as a term, has little to do with intelligent change of course. It is a political attack tool. The tool has been brought to a new level of use by
The Rove on behalf of The Bush. However, it works only because many people are willing to listen and react to it. A little rational thought should point the way. Why do we allow ourselves to be led down these paths when
information is available to the contrary?
 
Waldo said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Had he ever met Hillary and JFK II, he may have revised that comment.
 
Changing your mind without the express written permission of those who rely on your constancy is bad.

NOT changing your mind when confronted with irrefutable evidence that contradicts a previously-held or heretical belief is bad.

It all depends on the subjunctive clauses.
 
skeptigirl said:
Two things, changing position on an issue is good if it is the result of consideration of new information and bad if it shows the candidate or politician is simply telling the voter what they want to hear.

Second thing is the sheeple are easily swayed by slogan ads. You can make everyone who ever reconsidered an issue look like a vote panderer by just using the term, "flip-flop", as a negative description.
Click to expand...

Sheeple? That's silly. If you look at the races so far this year the voters have shown themselves to be anything but sheep. Indeed I sometimes think the politicians are the sheep, wandering around in the field trying to make believe they're leading their constituents.

And pandering is pretty easy to tell; does one adopt new positions because of national aspirations? See Dennis Kucinich's conversion to pro-choice or Mitt Romney's to pro-life.

Even if the candidate explains the reason for the changed position, the sheeple can be swayed differently by a carefully cherry picked quote again making the person look bad.
Click to expand...

Well, if you forthrightly state X is good and X turns out to be bad, isn't that something the "sheeple" should consider?

For example, Kerry's infamous, "I voted for it before I voted against it" (or however he worded it) was ripe for being exploited. He should have said something like, "There were [x] number of provisions in that bill and the version I voted against contained an unacceptable provision." His actual explanation was too long, too involved, as were many of his speeches.

Much of the changed positions from these politicians however, I'm sorry to say, is voter pandering. Maybe if that weren't so common the charge of flip flopping would be harder to make.
Click to expand...

He got caught out in the open. He had to make a choice between being a hawk and being a dove and he went for the latter. And it worked for him in the Democratic primaries, despite it obviously being pretty much a negative in the general. I guarantee you if Kerry had known how strong he would be after the first couple of states, there is no way he would have voted against that bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom