No flip-flopping on value of flip-flops
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
One of the biggest misconceptions in politics is that the so-called policy “flip-flop” on the part of a presidential candidate is undesirable. That isn’t necessarily so.
Let’s examine what a flip-flop is: a change of mind, an abrupt reversal of ideas on policy.
Let’s say you are a cat lover, and forbid dogs from coming into your house. Then, one day, you meet a dog that you love. You decide to give it a try. You bring it home. It becomes your loving pet — all because you were willing to change your mind about dogs.
The cat might have to get used to it, but you wouldn’t bring home a dog that would hurt your cat, if you loved the cat. Your mind changed for a reason.
One day, you are a Raiders fan, the next day you’re in the 49er camp. A flip-flop, but perhaps with good cause. Maybe the Raiders are losing, the 49ers winning.
If a political candidate takes a position, and then changes it because he believes his former position was either wrong or not as good as the new position, how is that necessarily a bad thing?
You may remember that Richard Nixon, the staunchest of anti-Communists, eventually engaged in detente with China and withdrew the U.S. from Vietnam.
One of the classic logical fallacies is that of “either-or,” which purports that only two positions can be held can be held in an argument. In fact, in most arguments, several positions are possible, and changes of mind are frequent, either through compromise or the introduction of new facts.
When you hear the candidates accuse each other of flip-flopping, ignore it, unless they are talking about going around with rubber thongs on their feet.
