SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Cartoon Character

AUGUST 13, 2008

Cartoon Character

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Do you remember when conservatives used to speak warmly, and sometimes rapturously, about Barack Obama? That was back when they were certain that the Clinton voodoo magic would make Hillary the nominee, and Obama her sympathetic roadkill. Since then, the right has made the horrifying discoveries that Obama is, successively, a left-wing ideologue, a coddler of anti- Americanism, a wine-sipping elitist, and, now, a shameless flip-flopper. The man will say anything, discard any position, in order to win the election.


If such a tragic tarnishing of the reputation could happen to a fresh-faced reformer like Obama, it could happen to anybody. And, in fact, it has--at least to anybody who has happened to attain the Democratic presidential nomination at any point over the last five election cycles. John Kerry, as everybody remembers, came to be defined almost exclusively as a flip-flopper. (A 2004 Wall Street Journal news article described him as "a politician with a troublesome reputation for trying to have it both ways.")


Al Gore was relentlessly attacked by Republicans for his alleged waffling. ("Mr. Gore has a bit of a reputation for flip-flopping and corner-cutting," reported The New York Times in 2000.) Bill Clinton was attacked by George H.W. Bush for "turn[ing] the White House into a Waffle House" and the subject of a famous Time cover story titled, "Why Voters Don't Trust Bill Clinton."


It was true: Voters didn't trust Clinton--or Gore, or Kerry. In all of those elections, polls showed the Democratic nominee scoring higher on most of the issues, but the Republican nominee scoring higher on honesty and other personal qualities. Either this is because the Democratic Party keeps nominating weasels for president, time and time again, or else there's something systemic that makes Republicans (and the press) portray them as such. I'm going with explanation number two.


Here's my systemic explanation. In the late 1980s, the popular revolt against government that had bubbled up in the mid-'60s began to peter out, sapping the power of straightforward anti-government appeals. And, starting in 1992, Democrats ruthlessly purged nearly all their political liabilities by embracing anti-crime measures, welfare reform, and middle-class tax cuts, and, more recently, by abandoning gun control. What's left is a political terrain generally favorable to Democrats, which has, in turn, forced Republicans to emphasize the personal virtue of their nominees.


And so, every four years, we have a Democratic candidate campaigning on health care, the minimum wage, education, Medicare, or Social Security, and a Republican candidate campaigning on themes like Trust, Courage, and so forth. President Bush in 2004 was explicit about his elevation of character over issues: "Even when we don't agree," he would say, "at least you know what I believe and where I stand."


The details of the Republican character narrative vary a bit from campaign to campaign. (In 1992, 1996, and 2008, Republicans waxed rhapsodic about the moral virtues inherent in military service; in 2000 and 2004, they played them down.) The alleged flip-floppiness of the Democratic nominee, though, is a hardy perennial. Flip-flopping is a simple accusation that campaign reporters can sink their teeth into. Moreover, there's always grist for the accusation, because getting to the position of running for president without changing your stance on a few issues is essentially impossible.


And, so, whatever two or three issues the Democratic nominee has changed his emphasis on are inevitably blown up into a devastating character indictment. The Charles Krauthammers and Sean Hannitys of the world can be counted on to whip themselves into a moralistic frenzy against the feckless Democrat. And news reporters will stroke their chins and ponder, because the question is being asked: Just who is Obama (Kerry/Gore/Clinton), anyway? Yes, he may have a detailed platform on domestic and foreign policy, but do we really know anything about this man?


If one needs any final proof of the ridiculousness of this quadrennial exercise, it is the fact that John McCain has embraced the flip-flopper attack. John McCain! I've said this before, I'll say it again: This is a man who, in his quest to make himself an acceptable GOP nominee, reversed his political philosophy (crusading anti-business progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt mode); his political orientation (frequently siding with, and nearly joining, Senate Democrats); and almost every particular undergirding it (taxes, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, his own immigration bill, etc.). But if you actually think that flip-flopping is a sign of flawed character, and not just a handy partisan cudgel, then, sure, Obama might be slightly cynical, but McCain must be a dangerous sociopath.


Now, allegedly Obama can be held to a higher standard because he has loftily set himself above ordinary politicians. (McCain has, too, but never mind.) The operating theory here is that Obama represents a New Politics of the purest and most innocent sort, and to expose him as a mere politician is to destroy the very rationale of his candidacy. Obama's "flip-flopping," writes Krauthammer, proves he's "just a politician." His "dash to the center," mourns National Review editor Rich Lowry, "falsifies the very essence of his candidacy."


It is no doubt true that some liberal Obamaphiles interpreted his disdain for "politics as usual" as a pledge to abstain from all political maneuvering and lead a campaign of monkish purity. Those people have had their eyes opened and should not vote for Obama or, for that matter, anybody.


However, there's a more likely, and less suicidal, interpretation of the "different kind of politics" Obama has practiced. First, he uses a more elevated, professorial, and less demagogic brand of rhetoric than most politicians. Second, Obama believes in the necessity of mobilizing his supporters as a counterweight against the power of organized special interests. This belief flows from his background as a community organizer, and requires active and continued participation from his supporters.


But, yes, he's just a politician--which is to say, he's willing to make some compromises to win. And, if Obama doesn't win, the Democrats will find a new nominee in four years--a shameless flip-flopper, no doubt.


Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 99 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

99 comments

Once again, Chait is insightful. His ability to cut to the truth of the matter at hand is astonishing.

- Mizzou

July 25, 2008 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it's a mistake to try and wrap your head around the flip-flopper charge on a literal, substantive level. Republicans are not saying, 'You shouldn't vote Democrat because this candidate tends to change his stance on positions and it's dangerous to have a president in office'-- they aren't making a predicative point about how Dukakis/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama will act once they're in office. The point of the flip-flopper label is that it fleshes out a general line of character attack that's central to the Republican strategy of leveraging cultural resentments: many Americans are predisposed to vote again candidates like Kerry (especially) and Obama in the first place under the suspicion that they're latte-sipping elitists who are out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans, etc etc etc. However, this sense of resentment isn't enough to swing voters on its own-- the average voter likes to believe that he/she is a rational creature, something that's evidenced by the fact that Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were all winning their respective races in the early-to-mid going on the strength of advancing policies that were more favorable to the public. You can't simply tell people to vote against a John Kerry because he comes from more money than you do and is better educated-- voters still need a tangible hook on which to hang the coat of their cultural resentments, to speak. Enter the flip-flopper charge: by finding an issue on which the candidate has modified his position (which, as Chait points out, is practically inevitable in a presidential candidate), Republicans can extend a concrete example of how the Democratic candidate embodies all these personal and cultural traits that run antithetical to ordinary Americans: unforthcoming, calculating, dishonest, beholden to the proverbial 'Washington fat cats' and all the rest. So, in short: the flip-flopper charge is only applied to Democrats because the Democratic candidate is the only candidate who needs to be campaigned against in a coded language of cultural resentment.

- Dan in Prague

July 28, 2008 at 3:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, certainly it is true that no candidate is completely consistent on all issues, that would be impossible. However, there is an essential difference which allows Republicans to use the flip flop charge and makes it not stick when hurled by Democrats: When Democrats flip flop, they always, ALWAYS flip flop towards the center, even towards the right. In doing this, they implicitly tell the people that they realize that more people lean to the right and so they're going to position themselves to grab as many undecideds as they can. Then when they reach office, they flop right back. Republicans, on the other hand, flop all over the place. Bush has gone quite liberal in education and Medicare spending, while certainly he moved decidedly to the right on national security after 9/11. McCain has moved right on immigration, but left on the energy markets. Thus it is not so much the change in positions, as it is the consistent and calculated manner in which Democrats define themselves, which the public easily perceives and judges accordingly.

- Burt

July 30, 2008 at 1:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. I think Obama or surrogates should be AGGRESSIVELY going after McCain's flip flopping. Massive advertising. You don't have to abandon the high road completely to run a separate low-road track. Don't just defend yourself - take the fight to him. God knows there's plenty of ammo. Perhaps Obama doesn't want to get his hands dirty, so let the MoveOns of the world do it. But if he waits around and just deflects attacks, he might just lose...

-

July 30, 2008 at 1:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the Democratic candidate always a flip-flopper??? I don't know... you tell me why they are always flip-flopping. :-) I suspect it is because the Democratic Party is held hostage by its most left-wing components so that anyone who gets elected to office has to adopt their agenda to stay in that office. But then to move up (to perhaps the Presidency)they have to appeal to a wider audience and abandon (temporarily) the positions they have long-held. More interesting is that they always revert to their more liberal positions once in office and get steamrolled as a result (Carter 1980, Clinton 1994, etc.).

- SpencerG

July 30, 2008 at 1:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans have been painting their candiate as a paragon of virtue and the Democrat as a man of some "vice" since the beginning of the Republican Party. Indeed, Republicans inherited it from the Whig Party.

- mnjam

July 30, 2008 at 1:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most important reason for Democrats very real propensity for flip-flopping, which Chait forgot to mention is that they are forced to take positions in the Democratic primary, which are simply unpalatable to the rest of the electorate. i.e unconditional troop withdrawls, single payer health care, partial birth abortion. If they din't move to the center they would get killed in the General as did Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern.

- Falling Panda

July 30, 2008 at 1:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could it be that GOP candidates present their views based on principles and Democratic candidates present the view their current constituency wants to hear? democratic candidates seem to constantly change their persona and talking points based on what the current voting block wants to hear. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of truly principled thought amongst this group.

- ew in Davis

July 30, 2008 at 1:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could it be that GOP candidates present their views based on principles and Democratic candidates present the view their current constituency wants to hear? democratic candidates seem to constantly change their persona and talking points based on what the current voting block wants to hear. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of truly principled thought amongst this group.

- ew in Davis

July 30, 2008 at 1:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dan in Prague: your analysis of the flip-flop trope is spot on.

- Mark H

July 30, 2008 at 2:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why? Because it's true.

- dualdiagnosis

July 30, 2008 at 3:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it because the democrat candidates are always afraid to stand their ground? As we all know, Obama didn't take a clear stand on nafta, public finance, gun control, immediate vs careful iraq withdrawal, that fisa bill, and im sure im missing others..

- marks77

July 30, 2008 at 3:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is the ratio of commentators complaining about lack of policy focus relative to those actually focusing on policy? A reasonable guess is 10:1. I think Chait is ziemlich right, manic "He is the new Bush!"-attacks notwithstanding.

- Daniel

July 30, 2008 at 3:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow... Way to miss the point. The issue with Obama is not that he is a flip flopper. To be a flip flopper means that you actually have to have a position on something. Obama takes both sides on a given topic in the same sentence. How we ended up with Obama over Clinton staggers the imagination. It will be soon when America realizes we put someone in front of the Democratic Party without substance or experience and the question will be how long the damage lasts. Mark my words, 4 years of McSame because we bought the Brady Bunch version of the high-school candidate for school body president that promises free vending machines and no homework.

- wblack

July 30, 2008 at 3:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not a flip flopper, he's not like other politician taking a different stand out of neccesity. McCain is a flip flopper. Flip flopping is change and adjustment over thirty year. Obama did all his flip flops in less than a year. Obama is worse than a flip flooer, he is a thug who lied to get elected. In short, he is untrustworthy!

- Sylvia Johnsen

July 30, 2008 at 4:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent article the new brand of politics is about not demonizing your competition and campaigning on the issues. Obama has been the only candidate that has lived up to that new brand of politics. Also Obama has reached out to liberals and conservatives alike to discus issues like the economy and health care. Dan in Prague gave and excellent explanation of the reasoning behind McCain and the Republicans using these divisive tactics which all too often distort the issues people really care about in every election. What may bury McCain this year is that his own so-called "flip flopping" is reaching monumental proportions for any presidential candidate in recent history, save for his opponent during the primaries Mitt Romney. The last nonsensical comment that came out of McCain's campaign this weekend was that John McCain did not speak for his own campaign when he raised the issue that he is open to increasing payroll taxes. Unlike Bush McCain cannot stay on message and seems to change his positions daily.

- KQuark

July 30, 2008 at 5:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the article: "Since then, the right has made the horrifying discoveries that Obama is, successively, a left-wing ideologue, a coddler of anti- Americanism, a wine-sipping elitist, and, now, a shameless flip-flopper." You know, I've gone so far as to sign up for the McCain mailing list from his web site. This article does a better job of bashing Obama than the McCain campaign does? Sour grapes? You guys starting to notice liberals rarely win the presidency maybe? More from the article: "And so, every four years, we have a Democratic candidate campaigning on health care, the minimum wage, education, Medicare, or Social Security, and a Republican candidate campaigning on themes like Trust, Courage, and so forth." Yeah, so McCain's positions on taxes, health care, and the Iraq War have nothing to do with what he's running on? Much as liberals would like to act like it's not an issue, character is important. That's why the American people have voted for presidents like they largely have for the last 40 years. Democrats had plenty of options for electing qualified people this election cycle. Dodd, Biden... Instead the only ones they were interested in was a woman, who was qualified, but was the least qualified of the people who were in the primaries, and a man who wasn't qualified at all. They voted the gimmicks, a woman and a black man. They voted for rock stars. Hillary's a rock star cause she's a woman and the wife of Bill. Obama's a rock star cause he's black and his eloquence. You guys sure you're voting the issues and not just voting for something that looks good on television? Kennedy was the first president to make good use of television with his Catholic/Hollywood imagery he put on TV - which was thanks to his father's experience in Hollywood. You guys sure you're not just looking for another Kennedy who will seduce you guys with slick imagery? Took a look at McCain. You guys gonna tell me he's a rock star? And don't bother with the war hero non-sense. Republicans were fully willing to pass on him when he first supported Bush's surge. But, they came back when it became clear how right he was.

- Levander

July 30, 2008 at 5:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The aspect of Obama which disturbs me the most is not flip-flopping, but rather his attempts to appear to appeal to moderates by modifying his stance (as defined by his voting reord) without really doing it. For example, if one examines his recent statements on abortion and gun-control, one sees that he begins with what appears to be a shift to the middle, but then takes it back with qualifications. Yes, a woman should not be allowed to adduce mental health issues in order to abort a late-term pregnancy, unless they are really, really serious. Yes, he says he has always supported the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, but adds that local communities should be allowed to make their own laws regarding their usage, a practice which effectively eviscerates the 2nd amendment. I will not tolerate such behavior in a politician. I do not expect to completely agree with him, but I expect him to express himself clearly.

- redmanrt

July 30, 2008 at 5:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is froth with lies and one sided bias. I think this must be one of those rightwing leaning websites that tend to do nothing but bash Democrats. For one thing I would like to challenge Republicans and their supporters to talk about issues rather than continue to smear, bash, attack and simply slime their opponents for no reason just like what their doing to Obama right now. If you guys wanna talk flip flop talk about McCain. His flip flopped in just about everything under the sun. Yet you rightwing nutjobs fail to look through that weakness and instead bury it like how you folks bury the truth under the sand. Secondly, McCain is becoming the biggest joke right now in politics. He is simply just a white angry man that is too old and too dumb to take on Obama on issues. All in all, you all don't impress me with your attack ads like this one. Must be true that Republicans lack the intellect and wisdom as their Democrat counterparts. Comparing Obama to McCain proves this point without a doubt.

- Jordan

July 30, 2008 at 5:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Democratic Party cannot exist without pandering and demagoguery. The Republicans dabble in it, but Democrats have no other option. There is never a substantive debate on ideas because the fundamental premises of the Democratic Party have already been proven by history to be fatally flawed. What that means is Democrats can never tell people what they really believe. They can't go out and tell people that America is the cause of all the world's problems. They can't go out and tell people that free market capitalism is detestable and immoral. They can't go out and tell people that the U.S. Military is evil and should be defunded. They can't go out and tell people that "religion is the opiate of the masses". They can't go out and tell people that they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They can't go out and tell people that they want to subordinate the popular sovereignty of the United States to the UN. So they dance. And people see them dancing.

- Jim

July 30, 2008 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a weak rationalization for facts that show that Democrats have flipflopped. They do so because they bow to the left to try to get the nomination and have to try come back to the middle to win the election. Facts speak for themselves. Take Barack Obama: The surge, campaign finance reform, Jerusalem, abortion rights, the death penalty,faith based initiatives, Jeremiah Wright, his church. All these rapid switches of opinion are fact-based changes designed to appeal to moderates. No weak rationalization by a biased journalist can change this.

- Joel Seidemann

July 30, 2008 at 6:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love how there's no discussion on the specific flip flops of Obama's or examination of why he's changed his position. When a candidate makes a stand, say on Public Financing, then does a 180 for selfish reason, major Flip Flop! If Oil spikes to $150/barrel and technology to retrieve it safely from our own shoreline exists, and it's killing the economy, for the good of the country, DO IT - a minor flip flop!

- Dennis in Detroit

July 30, 2008 at 7:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This bothers me too... And so, every four years, we have a Democratic candidate campaigning on health care, the minimum wage, education, Medicare, or Social Security, and a Republican candidate campaigning on themes like Trust, Courage, and so forth.????? I sorta remember Bush talking about issues too, like education, getting elected and pushing for No Child Left Behind? I remember 2004 and Bush pushing for reforms with Social Security, and allowing private accounts. So to broadly paint the above statement is not "ability to cut to the truth". It's misleading!

- Dennis in Detroit

July 30, 2008 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John McCain just in the last few months alone has become every bit as big of a flip flopper, if not bigger than Obama. He never fit in the Republican mold so now he is changing a lot of his core positions to align himself more with the right. They say Dems always run to the center, well Republicans always run further right. Check out how McCain has been posturing himself as a religious man just in the last month. If that's not pandering I don't know what is.

- Jason in NC

July 30, 2008 at 7:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not hard to see why conservatives label Obama a flip flopper: he IS one. He ran on not being like other politicians and from not taking expedient positions, but then did so. That made his position change difficult to ignore. Plus, his shifts on Iraq were also notable due to his focus on his Iraq stands as those that set him apart from what he marketed to be the less principled and more waffling stands of his Democratic opponents. Obama not only flip flopped, but he did so in ways that were bound to grab attention on issues core to the marketing of himself as a candidate. So your answer is Obama is seen as a flip flopper because he is one and made a flip flop spectacle out of himself without any help from conservatives. But I admit that there is a larger pattern. Haven't you seen it yet? It's the influence of the media, marketing and performing arts people on the election. The liberal arts types who form the creative and production staff of media, marketing and performing arts industries are quite literally predominantly liberal and many of them are liberal elites. These liberal arts types, being media, marketing and face people for our culture, are quite vocal and drive everything from press and broadcast coverage of elections to the jokes that frame our subconscious sense of ease or derision regarding particular candidates. The liberal media and pop culture of the U.S. is dominated by liberal/liberal arts Democrats. While that fact has many, many fascinating implications that a lot of cool articles can be written about, when it comes to the topic of this article, I'd like to point out that the liberal arts culture dominating the media and Democratic primaries means that shallow, charismatic and style take precedence over substance in selection of Democratic candidates during primaries. The liberal/liberal arts media types who dominate the voices of the Democratic electorate each primary season force shallow style-over-substance and less-than-noble candidates on the larger (blue collar) Democratic electorate year after year. Because they dominate the press, broadcast news and other outlets of our information culture, this particular demographic of Democrats have particular influence during Democratic Primaries. Compared to the more pragmatic blue collar Dems, they're not particularly pragmatic and compared to the more policy-wonk and intellectual Dems, they're not particularly bright. They pick the shallow, stupid and story-telling guys. Remember how the media couldn't even cover what they viewed as Clinton's tedious, lengthy and detailed "policy wonk" talks and major addresses? Hillary Clinton blew away Obama in knowledge and experience, but the shallow, style-over-substance media/performing arts crowd who dominate Democratic discourse during primaries had no comprehension or attention span to appreciate that and certainly didn't value competence and experience as a qualifier for Presidency. The shallow magazine-cover types who dominate our Democratic primary discourse all flipped and fawned over Obama's speaking skills, to the point where it seems to be the ONLY qualifier for candidate. It's past time to argue Kerry and other candidates, but Kerry was telling tall tales about his Vietnam service. While it's hard to tell what is a lie or truth, Kerry did get a lot of medals for doing what everyone else did, he was a blowhard and a braggart, and all the military-service-grandstanding and his bragging set him up to be "Swift-boated". Gore was not picked by the media as he was the incumbent VP of an economically successful President and should have won had he not been so stiff and rejected Bill Clinton's campaigning support (Gore actually did win, technically). Bill Clinton was another stylish, charming, charismatic politician only the liberal media (and America) got lucky because the charmer turned out to also be a vastly experienced, brilliant Rhodes scholar and attorney and governor who had a vastly experienced, brilliant wife. So with Bill Clinton, the candidate picked by the style-over-substance liberal media and performing arts Democrats, was also a substance guy. In the current candidate, we have a guy who, despite his charisma and self-enlarging affectations of elitism, accomplished nothing with an ivy league law degree before going into politics and who is running for President as a freshman senator. Only the liberal media/performing arts subculture dominating the Democratic Primaries would think this is a winning candidate for President. There's enormous frustration with Republicans and it's almost impossible to see how a Republican could win the White House this fall, but the media has picked the one guy who could lose to Republicans as he has nothing to run on except his race and his affectations (his positions shift to be expedient so he can't be said to have any real stands, anymore). Since the media has picked Obama, that means Obama becomes the Democrat's nominee! Another angle from which to view the media/pop culture artists domination of Democrat's nominating process is to say that the Democratic nominee would win the general elections if only the media/pop culture artists could dominate the larger electorate as much as they could dominate the Democrats' discourse. But until and unless the media can grow to dominate conservative thought and discourse as much as these liberal arts/performing arts types dominate Democrats' discourse, Dems will continue to nominate empty suits who can't be taken seriously and who aren't real winners overall. In my opinion, we'd all be a lot better off if the liberal arts media and performing arts types dominating American press, broadcast and entertainment culture stopped drowning out the voices of the rest of the Democratic electorate during primary seasons. They are, after all, a minority of Democrats, only they are a quite visible and vocal minority. But they aren't the most analytical, pragmatic or deep thinkers and we'd win more elections if we allowed blue collar Democrats to influence the nomination process more. Only a bunch of shallow, clueless artsy types would think Obama will be a good President during tough times. The blue dog Democrats and blue collar Dems would have picked a better candidate.

- AsperGirl

July 30, 2008 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason that Democrats get accused of flip flopping is that the Dem primaries end up selecting the most extreme left wing candidate. Then, once they have selected their extreme socialist, he turns around and tells voters that his primary stances were "overheated campaign rhetoric" or some such nonsense, hoping that most people were not paying attention to the primaries. The Republicans then make ads, with the actual words of the Dem candidate during the primaries, and then his new stances, and accuse him of waffling. People then lose trust in him, because it's abundantly clear that in one case, he was lying. The last exception to that was Clinton, and flip flopper didn't stick to him well enough to cause him to lose. The solution to this problem is for the democrats to pick a candidate who is a moderate, who centrists and independants can actually vote for. Not to lie their way to the middle once they've picked their extremist. Richardson would have been an excellent choice, but he got no traction in the primary, because he was too reasonable, and not extreme enough.

- Southerner

July 30, 2008 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan just doesn't get it. It's not flip-flopping, per se. It's drastically changing positions on issues--FISA, NAFTA, et. al., on which the Dem candidate claimed were so important that they could not be altered as a moral imperative. On FISA he said he would filibuster before letting the measure come to a vote. There are many, many examples of this. As important, when caught changing position, such as attempting to revise his position on Iraq and flipping back hours later after his own base turned on him, he has used lawyerly explanations to tell the electorate that, no, he didn't change his position, we "just weren't listenting." This is a bit too cute for a lot of voters. The issue isn't flip-flopping, it's the difficulty in determining whether there is any issue on which the candidate will stand firm, even at considerable personal political risk, as a matter of principle. Bush has that. McCain does. Reagan had it. This Democratic candidate seems not even to understand the importance of this trait or to know what it is.

- Mike

July 30, 2008 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm going with explanation number one.

- KG

July 30, 2008 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the writers' first theory was the most accurate. Democrats keep nominating weasels.

- xtc409

July 30, 2008 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sure Dan, democrats never use the "coded language of cultural resentment" against republicans. They never say things like "Big Oil", or "tax cuts for the rich". Face it, the flip flop label works because it fits.

- jon

July 30, 2008 at 8:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I do believe you all (yes I'm a Republican) miss the simplest explanation. Democrats have for most of my life nominated sitting or recent Senators and Senators have records on National issues. Your record is 2-1 when you nominate a Governor. The one that lost was from one of the most extreme (in our view) liberal states. Republicans would have had the same problem as Dukakis had if we had nominated a Governor from Mississippi or South Carolina. (Think Confederate Flag issue. What plays well locally in South Carolina or Mississippi does not play well nationally). Democrats have nominated in my life Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Gore & Kerry. Republicans nominated Ford (I know not a Senator) & Dole. All of these candidates lost. (Humphrey & Gore went from Senator to VP and therefore were never out of the national spotlight). Nixon (a possible exception) on the other had an eight-year break from non-political people’s view of the national spotlight. This cycle both our candidates will "embody all the personal and cultural traits that run antithetical to ordinary Americans: unforthcoming, calculating, dishonest, and beholden to the proverbial 'Washington fat cats'". Let the name-calling begin.

- James

July 30, 2008 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The answer is stereotypes. Lefties are flip floppers. Righties are dumb. Lefties womanize. Righties embezzle. For instance, anyone who gives several speeches a day stumbles, makes mistakes, misspeaks. You see endless compilations of "dumb" righties doing exactly that. You never see the same thing compiled about lefties. Heck, they even leveled such "dumbness" charges against Winston Churchill, only to then go and giving him the Nobel prize for literature! Regards Gordon

- Gordon Pasha

July 30, 2008 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While Republicans have been wielding the blunt instrument of personal and cultural virtue, Democrats have been forced into the unenviable position of articulating nuanced positions that a lot of people just don't seem to have the attention span to work through, let alone educating themselves about things like facts and historical background. Obama meanwhile, applies his much-vaunted "rockstar charisma" to get people to hear him out, and then declines to adhere to the Manichean either/or choices that our fatuous national political conversation keeps offering us. McCain keeps it simple; for example, you're either a rational person who thinks "the surge" is a success, or you're a dangerous ignoramus who just doesn't know what's going on -- either you're right or wrong, and the only answers are success or failure. Obama's position of saying that "the surge" is a successful tactic in that the troops did as they were ordered successfully, but that the whole project is no less of a disaster isn't as simple, so the opposition can accuse him of "wanting to have it both ways", when in fact it's actually the articulation of a consistent position. All that's needed then is a few soundbites and the word "flip-flopper" and voila! I agree that it's about leveraging cultural resentment -- the word "nuanced" has become a dirty word in our politics, as has the word "elite", and the very notion of decisions being informed by "experts" rather than "common sense" is anathema to a large swath of the electorate. There's a strong anti-intellectual force on the right, and it means that the candidate articulating something outside the predictable red vs. blue parameters is a dirty equivocator. It's tiresome.

- Jaime in Prague

July 30, 2008 at 8:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Dems won't get any traction by portraying McCain as a flip-flopper(both sides being equally subject to charges thereof)there remains a tried and truly effective tactic for them to use on McCain-swiftboat the muthafucka! There is more that is untold(read unglorious) about his military service than ever was about Kerry's.

- lesserliz

July 30, 2008 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain or any apponent of the recent presedential races are just stating the obvious. If people are believing the charge there is probably an element of truth to the charge. Actually there is a huge element to the truth to the charge. We don't need the Republicans to convince us that Obama is a Flipper. Just listen to the man. He actually changes his stance depending on who is standing in front of him. I will concede that he is not a Flipper if if we can call him a Fence Straddler. That's a better description since Obama is actually supporting both sides of an argument at the same time.

- Dave S

July 30, 2008 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a "fresh-faced reformer"? Well, Chait is entitled to his opinion though I think to be called a "reformer" one ought to have a record or reform or at least substantive reform proposals. By my reckoning, Obama offers neither. To his credit, Obama does challenge his own party on Social Security solvency but still operates more as an old-line protectionist Democrat than a "third way" Democrat like Clinton who embraced Nafta, welfare reform, spending restraint, capital gains tax cuts, etc. Democrats are more easily labeled flip-floppers because they embrace nuance. "I am for Policy A if conditions 1, 2, and 3 are present but for Policy Z if they are not." Obama takes this to an art form by adding in Policies B, C, and D and then claiming he was for the optimal one all along years later when the results are known. According to Chris Hitchens in Slate: “Shortly after Baghdad had fallen at a then-cost of perhaps 100 U.S. fatalities, (Obama) said publicly that there was no serious difference between the Bush position and his own. It was only by retro-engineering his politics, and pointing to a speech he had made in Chicago very much earlier in the Iraq debate, that he was able to create the idea that he had been both braver and more prescient than his rivals for the nomination.” Then on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Tom Brokaw asked Obama, “when you said that the surge would actually INCREASE violence, not decrease it, were you wrong?”, Obama said something to the effect of, “Yes, I said that but I also said that obviously if you add more troops, our troops would rise to the occasion and they did.”

- Shalesh

July 30, 2008 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait would have made a more accurate selection if he selected Door # 1.

- Paul T.

July 30, 2008 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The flip-flopper tag works because Democrats are much more likely to change their views because of polls, not facts. The name of the party tells you how they operate. Mob-rule. What the mob wants, the mob gets. Facts be damned.

- 4-horsemen

July 30, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I prefer the simple explanation: To get nominated, a Democrat must convince the Far Left. To get elected, a Democrat must convicnce the Center. The stances of both are almost mutually exclusive.

- Kevin

July 30, 2008 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well-argued, Mr. Chait. But Occam's razor suggests that Democrats are more open to the flip-flop label because liberals -- or, as they usually prefer, progessives -- have camparatively little fixed principle on which to anchor their agenda. Ther very essence of progressivism suggests that everything is up for grabs; that what is Political Truth today may be overcome by events tomorrow. That is why Democrats are particularly likely to flip-flop on cultural issues: because they are the ones that embody the thorniest moral questions. And when your political stances begin with a dedication to moral relativism, everything really is up for grabs. Or, you can go with an erudite and lucid version of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which is precisely what Mr. Chait offers.

- anotherpossibility

July 30, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Liberals always call Republicans idiots, and conservatives always call democrats flip-floppers. It is a time honored tradition which bores the hell out of people like me, who have seen all of this before a hundred times. This clown Obama is the newest 'different' guy, who is no different than all of the other 'different' guys who have come before. He will be a president for 'all of the people', and 'stand up to the special interests', and oppose 'big' (oil,coporations,tobacco,you pick one). He will steal from the rich, and give to the poor. Ho hum.

- jopiper

July 30, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try Mr. Chait, but I think you have it exactly wrong. Most of the country is not liberal. Most of Washington and the elites of the Democratic Party are thoroughly liberal. As a result, Democratic members of Congress elected from Red States find themselves saying one thing in their home states and voting another at Washington. Democratic members of Congress from Blue States find themselves voting liberal in Congress and retreating from it when they hit the national stage. Why do you think Obama gets thin pluralities in the polls in what should be a 1964 landslide-type year for Democrats? Americans may like particular government goodies that the Democrats relentlessly sell, if they think they'll get something out of them. They don't like government in general.

- David James

July 30, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama uses "elevated, professorial? rhertoric? That's laughable. Being a community organizer is hardly a profession, it's more like an excuse for not having a real job. Why is it that Chait avoids mentioning electoral funding, free trade, gun laws, and Iraq, all issues that Obama has arguably changed his position on? Let's be realistic, all politicians flip-flop, but their explanation as to why their position has changed is what is important.

- Conservative Canuck

July 30, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "flip flopping" of Dem presidential candidates is unsurprising. Since Reagan, the United States electorate has been pretty consistently center-right. Thus, Dems running for President have to tell their liberal base one thing and then the center right general electorate something else. Despite the spin abut being a new type post ideological politician, Mr. Obama has followed this script religiously. This is not exclusively a Dem phenomenon. When the electorate was center-liberal between the New Deal and the 70s, the GOP candidates were the flip floppers. Nixon bounced ideologically around like a Mexican jumping bean.

- Bart DePalma

July 30, 2008 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Either this is because the Democratic Party keeps nominating weasels for president, time and time again, or else there's something systemic that makes Republicans (and the press) portray them as such. I'm going with explanation number two." I think you're conflating two larger themes here. The Republican "attacks" on various Democratic contenders contain two related, but not identical lines. Weakness, and flip-flopping. "Weakness" comes out of being, well, overly-unsure about courses of actions. Great for the latte sipping scientist, but sometimes the hero needs to come in, make a decision, and proceed one way or the other (learning from mistakes along the way). "Flip-flopping" is something different. That's a clear decision to switch back and forth, to get political benefit from both sides of an issue. Changing your mind is allowed. Changing your mind for political expediency (and then changing it back in your next interview) isn't. ***The problem isn't the flip... it's the flop.*** And frankly... yes, the Democratic Party has a habit of nominating candidates with a propensity for this. No one forced Kerry's hand with the "I was for it before I was against it" line, and how many flip-flops has Obama already done? Enough for the DailyKos and other NetRoots to notice, certainly. Also... re: "In 1992, 1996, and 2008, Republicans waxed rhapsodic about the moral virtues inherent in military service; in 2000 and 2004, they played them down." I don't recall much playing up OR playing down in the 2000 elections, mainly because the chief nominees for both parties didn't press the issue, and pre-9/11 we were all still in an end-of-history high. In 2004, it was John Kerry who pushed forth the military service in Vietnam as a bona fide "positive" for him. That's frankly why he won the primaries, and he opened himself up to charges from that. The Swift Boat charges wouldn't have had NEARLY as much of an impact if the DNC speech hadn't been a trip down Vietnam veteran lane. Basically, the Democrats made military an issue in 2004, not the Republicans. And if the Republicans responded with disparaging comments, it wasn't because of military service in general, it was Kerry's military service in particular. But they wouldn't have gone there much at all if "served in Nam" hadn't been on Kerry's feature list.

- J.C.

July 30, 2008 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love reading TNR in the morning. I use to read the comics in the newspaper when I was a kid, now I go online to TNR for some laughs. TNR more than any other publication if full of third-rate writers (like Chait) who consistently deliver banal drivil that gets eaten up by the legion of TNR fans as insightful analysis. "Insightful"? What a joke. (Oh MY GOD!!! The Republicans have hit upon a successful political attack and they are sticking with it year after year!!!) And then Dan in Prague comes along with the typical "I'm very intelligent so let me expain this to you" response. Priceless!!! It doesn't get any funnier than this.

- darcy

July 30, 2008 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could it also be that, to win the Primary, Democrats have to say lots of things to appease their far left base. HOWEVER, since the left-stream is so out of touch with mainstream America, the Democratic candidates then have to "pivot" (aka flip-flop) to try to win the general election. Meanwhile, Republicans, though sometimes with their own extremes, are generally more aligned with the mainstream and therefore do not have to change as much for the general election. Could that be it?

- PhillyPhoton

July 30, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everyone knows NYT and Time are tools of the Republican propoganda machine. Obama's "move to the center" is a Republican lie. He's never before had to take a position on issues that matter in a Presidential election. His so-called "most liberal" voting record (when he was able to be "really" present) is irrelevant. All we need is hope and change and his changing positions demonstrates he's best able to deliver on that. He's the best of all worlds, a fresh-faced reformer with old and familiar values. I have just one problem with Chait's insightful article. When did conservatives ever speak warmly, and sometimes rapturously, about Barack Obama?

- bondf

July 30, 2008 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A good day for the press. This is the second article I've read today that touches on what's actually happening in this election. (The other being "Why nothing the press throws at Obama sticks" by Jack Shafer in Slate)

- Stuart Cadenhead

July 30, 2008 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem is, to paraphrase Woody Allen, all politicians are a notch below child molestors in moral terms. The reason they all the Democrats look like flipflopping say anything to win scum bags is because they are flipflopping say anything to win scumbags. The Republicans are too. This is why the only appropriate response is not voting. These scum bags will gain power whether I support them or not, but at least my conscience will be clear.

- Brian

July 30, 2008 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Flip-flopping is more than changing positions. It's changing positions when it's politically expedient, while attempting to deny that any change has occurred, or attempting to defend it by explaining what new facts or analysis it is based on. Perhaps Democratic presidential candidates in recent elections have been more inclined than Republicans to curry favor with focus groups, or to be blown this way and that by ephemeral polling results. In any case, it certainly seems that they have made themselves more ridiculous trying to play both sides of various issues without admitting that they have changed their positions, or making any any serious attempt to explain why.

- Texan99

July 30, 2008 at 10:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason the Democrat candidates are labeled as flip-floppers is because they are. They must run so far to the left of mainstream America to win the primary that the remaining time until the election is spent trying to align themselves with the electorate. To say that the reason this charge sticks is because of "cultural resentments" is a snobbish slap at most Americans. That attitude in, and of, itself will continue to harm Democrats when it comes to national elections. Look closely at the gains Dems have made in Congressional elections in and since 2006. Those that have won have actually run to the right of their Republican opponents - gov't spending and ethics. As evidenced by the entries above, commenters thus far feel that they are a bit superior to the common American - who obviously envies their money, social status and high education. So, please climb down from your towers and mingle with real people rather than continuing to look down upon them as the unwashed masses that can easily be swayed by opinions which differ from your own.

- Dave

July 30, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has got nothing on McCain in the reversal department. I love how almost every poster misses that basic fact. Big Lie conservatism rolls on my friends.

- Northern Observer

July 30, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Americans don't deserve Obama. Vote for McCain so he can continue to run the U.S. into the ground.. and then, watch the Republican elite make billions in rebuilding the whole mess. Watch Cheney become C.E.O. of Haliburton and run the reconstruction effort. Oh, and don't forget to buy stock in Haliburton.

- Mostlympc

July 30, 2008 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait thinks this out a little too much. The answer is much simpler. YOU CAN GET ELECTED PRESIDENT ON FREE MARKET CONSERVATIVE PLATFORM. YOU CAN'T ON A SOCIALIST PLATFORM. Simple as that. A Republican candidate can say "free-markets, limited government, individual empowerment" and always have the majority even if they end up off the path. Stick to that message and your ok. Of course a lot of smart people in NY and SF don't get this because they never rub elbows with a typical voter. A Democratic candidate who says "Gov't regulation, gov't transfer of wealth, and gov't allocation of nonessential services" ALWAYS has to backtack and try to assuage the average voter. It's message that makes it imperative for Obama to say to union members and libs that he is against NAFTA and CAFTA and then to "flip" and try to soften his message. McCain can say he's for free trade and NAFTA and CAFTA and never have to flip. It's a hard to swallow fact for liberals that in a functioning democracy the liberal message will NEVER be embraced by the majority. Only when the democracy becomes VERY disfunctional couls you expect the core message of liberalism to be accepted by a majority

- wtlf555

July 30, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, This was a fine article, but you should follow it up with a Part 2 that goes into why the "flip-flopper" attack works. Could it be that, since 1980, liberalism has been the Politics That Dare Not Speak Its Name? If you hope to use government to help people who need help and to foster community, but you're afraid to say so clearly, you tend to prevaricate and focus on process and technocracy. The GOP is the Christian party, and it's also the free-market orthodox party. Each of these is a pretty defined, totalizing ideology. Since Reagan, the Democrats have been afraid to be the communitarian party, the Mommy party, or the people's party. It's past time to come out of the closet. I hope Obama has the political skill and the courage to do it. Were FDR, JFK or LBJ ever accused of flip-flopping? I doubt it, although they were willing to change policies. But their basic approach to governing was clear, and the propounded it openly and proudly.

- Hal

July 30, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More from the fawning pro-BHO media.

- bmarks

July 30, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clinton was consistent so he had to be attcked on his abysmal character. It didn't work. The people loved him anyway, while making fun of his all too human sexual foibles. The other candidates mentioned are, true to the "progressive" base form which they sprung, self righteous about their opinions and disdainful of the great unwashed herd (blacks excepted) whom they profess to be speaking for.

- r-ennis

July 30, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually a good article, but mostly misses the political point. People don't like flip-floppers primarily because this is seen as pandering to political fads. Indeed, if we go back to Carter - conspicuously absent in the article - he was famous for changing his stance based on the latest poll. But we - the voters - are not stupid, and know that no one is perfect, but more importantly, flip-flopping or pandering to the latest fad is the quickest way to lose your way. We understand that plans must be laid out and followed. Research must be relied upon, advice taken and decisions made. Most importantly, leaders are often called upon to stay the course despite storms and high winds. Leadership is not a popularity contest, very much like parenting isn't. You must do the best thing for those whom you are leading. And if that makes you unpopular for the moment, then it definitely is more difficult and probably the right thing to do. Leaders aren't paid to do the easy thing. Pandering to the most popular seems to be the Democratic party's preferred path to presidential aspirations, but unfortunately not the best way to find an effective leader for a country. Until Democrats get this, they will continue to postulate elitist weasels for leadership.

- Bullwhip

July 30, 2008 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, so what's the moral of the story? Democrats need to realize that they are in a full-tilt propaganda war with the right, and that the Republicans are generally better at such tactics because they view integrity and scruples as signs of weakness that get in the way of winning. For too long the Democratic Party has adhered to the naive belief that if you are on the right side of the issues and simply make a logical case on the merits, the electorate will respond. So much for that fantasy. Obama's decision (flip-flop?) to forego public funding was a good first step, and suggests that he understands the rules of the game. Put that together with the futility of McCain's clumsy efforts to simultaneously mollify the base and appeal to moderate, undecided voters (flip-flops in real time), and I believe that this election will be different.

- Django

July 30, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You should have picked number one. Did we forget that Bill Clinton had his law license suspended, was fined by a judge for lying in a grand jury proceeding, and was banned for a term from arguing at the Supreme Court because of his perjury? Did we forget that John Kerry promtly came home from his four months of tooling around in a swift boat in vietnam and promptly attacked his fellow soldiers as barbarian hordes/ war criminals of the highest order? Um flip-flopper you say? How outrageous and unfair! www.bothinonetrench.com

- Ray Robison

July 30, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has MAJOR flip flops. The one with him saying Iran is a small country and is not a threat and the next day they are a Huge threat. Different audiences different beliefs. Is there a reasonable explanation for such a massive flip flop? That one statement alone should make him a laughing stock and booed from every stage. He simply lied. I am willing to hear an explanation but we will never hear one. Against the surge in Iraq but for a surge in Afganistan. Does that even make sense? I guess the best McCain flip flop is the off shore drilling. That is over years and over a major difference in price of oil. Same with Bush Cheney and Rummy. Their big flip flop is the whole nation building and Iraq Afgan war. Liberals can't seem to see how 911 would or could change someones opinion on getting involved in that area of the world. I wonder if Team Obama just do it to show off how cocky they are. If Obama came out and said he thought the surge would work in Iraq and always supported it, liberals would say that was not a flip flop and he did say that. Any video showing him to say anything else to be a "smear" or "made up". Or that is not Obama. Further a flip flop is a change in position. You can't change what you said and then deny it! Obama and democrats are amazing. They can say anything. Reid: "Democats have always been for increasing domestic oil production!" What??? How can he possibly say that? How can any reasonable person think that can possibly be true?

- tinman

July 30, 2008 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why not take an in-depth look at the 'waffle' points in question with honest, intelligent and unbiased analysis (for both candidates), BEFORE running off in your defense of Obama and company? Perhaps then you'll come across as a serious and perhaps respected political observer rather than just another lackey for the Democratic party. Is it possible that the positions a candidate has to take to get the Democratic nomination is too far left to win a general election (and therefore they have to adjust their positions closer to center in order to have any hope of winning in the fall)?.

- gdg

July 30, 2008 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mostlympc is right, we don't deserve Obama. Lets send him to Stockholm, where his policies would fit better with the prevailing culture.

- Southerner

July 30, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, my goodness, these anti-Obama attack ads are getting really, really lame. The latest? That Obama is the "biggest celebrity in the world". Sheesh, why didn't you say so? That's DEFINITELY something to be ashamed about! (rolls eyes)

- kevincollins

July 30, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Dems get the flip-flop label because they can't get elected by expounding on what they believe, that is Socialism. They always try to run the Trojan horse strategy and most of us can see it coming every election cycle. Socialism always leads to the tyranny of government. There is no way to avoid it when a political philosophy must rely on central authority planning in order to achieve it's goals. Live free, people! Join the Whig party today!

- Jim Baker

July 30, 2008 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

excellent analysis

- gdg

July 30, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article brings up a hugely important issue, but his conclusions are a little off, though still close. The beginning of the democrats as the flip flop party started in 1992 with Bill Clinton. Before that time Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, etc. focused on traditional liberal to moderate views, which of course did not go over well in elections. Bill Clinton campaigned as a new democrat who would focus on issues that were discussed in the article. He was very successful even though the first flip flop charges were thrown. When Clinton become president he veered sharply left with a tax hike, an introduction of a pork barrel stimulus bill and of course, the infamous Lani Guinier. The public in a rage about the about face threw the dems out of office in midterm elections. After this point the Republicans had flip flop to throw around successfully. The standard had been set. The Republicans have flipped on many issues, most notably President Bush running on not getting involved in foreign excursions, but for the most part the Republican party generally stays pretty close to their objectives. The reason why McCain's flips don't get the same scrutiny is because they don't fall outside conservative objectives. McCain can flip on taxes of course, because is it clear he does not want to raise taxes and would only do so as a last resort. On immigration McCain may change positions on enforcement, but his general amnesty talk stays the same. You can't say that about Obama or another democrat. The democratic party has two choices to avoid the flip flop charge. They can run as a traditional liberal anti-war party, which is clearly where the sentiment of the party lies, and take on the second amendment, abortion, foreign affairs etc. with a direct and clear philosophy, or they can move to the center for real. This would involve having an unequivicol party platform, for example, supporting free trade in principal, or wanting to ban partial birth abortions in most cases. Such a real move to the center would reassure people that this is an institutional decision and finally put the flip flopping to rest.

- Craig

July 30, 2008 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SO what ar Sen McCain's values? I do not believe either candidate is qualified to be president.

- jackd2001 Canton, oh

July 30, 2008 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. Democrat candidates for national office are more often accused of changing their policy positions for the simple reason that it is true. Their primary and activist base is far more liberal than the rest of the country. Whatever one thinks of the Republicans their base is closer to the majority opinion on most issues. This necessary (for Democrats) facility,joined with their so evident disdain for the mass of the electorate--witness their coming debacle over oil drilling--is one of the reasons they keep losing national elections they should win. To quote: "Second, Obama believes in the necessity of mobilizing his supporters as a counterweight against the power of organized special interests". Rhetoric at its silliest. So Obama represents no special interests? Let's see, unions, the enviromental lobby, mediamatters, moveon, public health care advocates, NOW, the list is very long. These are not special interests? It is one thing for a candidate to pretend his special interests are public interests it is quite another thing for a journalist to do so.

- Joseph Trevisani

July 30, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why are all Republicans corrupt?

- Judy Curtis

July 30, 2008 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact is, a centrist can't win the Democratic nomination, so you get people like Obama who tell people what they want to hear. Speak at a college, and you're for decriminalizing marijuana. Engage in a nationally televised debate, and you're against it. Chait is right when he says you can't get to the position of running for President without changing a few positions, but the Democrats have made it an art form. Don't blame the Republicans for making it an art form pointing that out.

- Andy

July 30, 2008 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now now.....here is a little list of McCain's flip flops to keep this artilcle honest....McCain has more experience in flip-flopping so his list is a little longer than Obama's * McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it. * McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea. * McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite. * McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.) Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet…. * McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t. * McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite. * He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” * McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite. And these come after these other reversals from April and May: * McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite. * McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite. * McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite. * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite. * McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite. * He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite. * McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t. * He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t. * McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t. And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier: * McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.” * McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision. * McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004. * In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser. * McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions. * McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions. * McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church. * McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office. * McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona. * McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea. * McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position. * McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. * In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding. * McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it. * McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it. * On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation. * In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure. * McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.” * McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.” * McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite. * McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed. * McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. * McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February. * On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending. * In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support. * McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation. * McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it. * McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it. * McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol. * McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag. ? McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York. Oh and not to mention that this week he said "nothing is off the table" when it comes to potentially raising taxes take care and keep up the honest reporting if you can

- Oregon4Obama

July 30, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Yes, he may have a detailed platform on domestic and foreign policy, but do we really know anything about this man?" Obama lacks a detailed platform for either domestic or foreign policy but rather promotes the light fumes of high sounding phrases like hope and change. Domestically, one can promise all kinds of goodies, but they have to be paid for. College fees, health care, and the lot cost a lot. And to say that a surge in Afghanistan will have a similar impact as it has had in Iraq is to misunderstand the war there. The surge in Iraq focuses on inner cities. In Afghanistan it is a rural battle, and a porous border along Pakistan that is at issue. Pakistan is politically fractured and is not especially stable. Attacking inside Pakistan could create a terrible mess. And suggesting that the US will or should bow to the European Union is not wise US policy. So I do not think American's do believe 'Bama has a handle on the issues. However, he is a great speech maker, a good promiser, a good politician, a nice looking guy, young and energetic. If he does win the election, and there is a strong likelihood he will, he will learn and grow in office and develop more realistic goals. But there might be a period of tragic failures first until he learns what will not work.

- Dennis D

July 30, 2008 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reason why Democrats are flip-floppers is actually quite simple: they have to tack left to win the nomination, which leads them to take unelectable positions with the wider electorate. Then, they have to change (or to use the euphemism du jour, "refine") their positions for the general election. This prompts skepticism among voters as to their core identity, and raises trust issues. Say what you want about McCain, but he has a history of having taken positions (e.g., campaign finance reform) that anger his Republican base. McCain has this history only because he is (a) politically suicidal, or (b) more sure of himself in his core values. Obama has no such history with his Democratic base, which plays into the trust issue that he creates by changing (oops, I meant, "refining") his positions. I am not sure that Obama has ever chosen a hill on which he was willing to die. McCain has. It's that simple.

- Mike

July 30, 2008 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are correct. The straigtforward anti goverment appeals stopped working in the 80's, but this is at least in part because the left blurs the distinctions. That is why the frustrated right tries to catch them in deception. The left should state explicitly that they want to increase spending A LOT-for families and individuals making less than $30,000, by raising taxes A LOT on families with combined incomes over $100,000. Then the people making $30,001 to$99,999-"independent/undecided voters" could decide whether that is fair. Democrats are not tough on crime, they don't care if the poor work for their transfer payments, they hate private guns, they are not for lower taxation. If they would just say so, elections would actually be about issues-not personal biographies and integrity.

- Joe

July 30, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans never flip flop. They always say "no" Unless of course it benefits oil and drug companies and the top 2% of the wealthiest people in America. Anything else is "socialist". Been running on "Just Say No" since forever......but they never flip flop unless they move further to the right. :-)

- toritto

July 30, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain's policy changes are based on changing facts. Oil prices are skyrocketing, so we must supplement supply; the American everyman is more important that the remote possibility of a spill. The Tax cuts have taken root in the economy, so repealing them would be a de facto tax hike; not good policy on the verge of a recession. Obama has clearly made his changes in policy in an attempt to pander to the electorate. Sure McCain gets a political benefit from his reversals, but at least there is an argument behind them. Obama can't claim that there has been a change in the facts on gun control, surveillance, and Iraq mere months (or even weeks) since he articulated his original position. I would say that this blatant oversight (bias?) is why Chait is writing for a rag like the New Republic, but this Obama craze has penetrated all levels of the mainstream media. Pretty sad

- Kevin

July 30, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are missing the key point. Democrats are the party of morale relativism. Their underlying guiding principles are based on the relative merit of any idea. When the need to shift occurs, the Democrat is much more likely to shift since they have not embraced principles but interest groups. Those groups define the party and they will always be seen as wafflers, you used the word sleazy, not me.

- A.D. Stewart

July 30, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We always wonder which McCain will show up today. Will it be senator McFlip or senator McFlop? And he gets away with it.

- gene Burkard

July 30, 2008 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are missing the key point. Democrats are the party of morale relativism. Their underlying guiding principles are based on the relative merit of any idea. When the need to shift occurs, the Democrat is much more likely to shift since they have not embraced principles but interest groups. Those groups define the party and they will always be seen as wafflers, you used the word sleazy, not me.

- A.D. Stewart

July 30, 2008 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's an easy question to answer. McCain changes a position and says "because of this... this... and this... I changed my mind." When Obama (or most Democrats) change a position, they do not admit they changed a position. Ask Obama about his flip on Gun Control. He won't say "I've seen the light", no... he will say he didn't change his mind and it was all out of context and maybe he didn't choose the right words. Or, he will say one thing to one group and another thing to another group and not clarify his real position and answer why his answers changed. That's why. If BO or any Democrat would just say... "I was wrong and I changed my mind." It would be over and nobody would call them a flopper. Everybody does that once in a while. Period. Any questions?

- Ster

July 30, 2008 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You also have to notice that most Conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) take a position on what they believe is right (even if most don't agree or they are wrong). Liberals (not necessarily Democrats) usually tell people what they WANT to hear, not what they need to hear. So, their positions have to change at least slightly depending on who they are talking to. (Check out Obama's comments on gun control, poverty, etc...) So, his position changed (even if only a little bit) but he says he never changed. So, he gets tagged as a flipper. Or, at the very least, we don't know what he REALLY, truly believes. Because of this (speaking your true opinions), Cons are called cold-hearted. Example: When the facts say that the best way to stay out of poverty is stay in school, wait to have kids until you're married, etc... They are called insensitive and preachy. (Even though it's a fact.) Democrats tell people what they WANT to hear -- you're a victim, it's not your fault, we will help you with $$$, etc... They are called wonderful, sensitive people. The fact that the welfare system and victimization tends to keep people poor and down doesn't matter. Remember the Clinton/Republican Welfare reform? Maxine Waters (D) said that Repubs would toss million of "young black children into the street" and that "hundreds of thousands would starve". Guess what, it didn't happen. It actually helped million OUT of poverty. If we ever do it again, Maxine would say the same thing - even though she was proven wrong. It's not what works, but what sounds or feels good. Plus, most Democrats do not want people off of welfare. Why? The more people dependent on government (and the Democrats), the better. The more people who are needy, the more voters they have. It's the opposite for Repugs. So, if Repugs want more self-sufficient and well-off people and Democrats want more poor people, who should you listen to? Think about that one. And I hear all the time that Repugs want people poor. Nope. The more wealthy people we have and the more middle class we have, the better businesses and people like Repugs do. They want MORE for everybody - so they have more customers. Demos? They want more poor people - more votes - more people dependent on them. I found this out the hard way. I was one of the die-hard libs who thought all Repugs were evil. When I found out that I was being lied to the whole time, and was being made to feel like a victim (I didn't realize it at the time), I split the party. I am now better off. While I hate parties (including the Repug party), I am now conservative. It's what works... liberty and capitalism. Leftists had their try with socialism and communism. Guess what... didn't work. Why won't they go with what DOES work? Of yeah, because the gov. taking care of us sounds easier and it's what we want to hear, not what we need to.

- ster

July 30, 2008 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To understand why democrats are successfully accused of "flip-flopping", while that label fails to stick to republicans we first need to clarify the definition of flip-flopping as it is often mis-used by the media. Politicians do change their positions over their careers, and even across an election season. This is not a bad thing. Who would want a leader that is so stubborn as to never change a thought across a 30 or 40 years career? Even in a single election cycle, politicians bargain with other members of their party to gain support. As a result, they often accept positions they do not fully agree with in order to win on bigger issues. Flip-Flopping on the other hand is when a politician changes their position specifically based on the audience they are addressing or the most recent poll numbers. For example: Kerry loved his SUV when talking to auto workers, but the next day when speaking at an Earth day event, he despised SUV's. The reason democrats are more likely to flip-flop is a result of the coalitions they have built over the years. While republicans generally aim their campaigning at main stream Americans, democrats have dozens of special interest groups they have to appease. There is no way to appease them all without simply telling them what they want to hear.

- Bob W

July 30, 2008 at 6:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact of the matter is that Republicans can't tell the difference between a nuanced position and waffling -- or, more likely, they pretend they can't, in order to whip up accusation-fodder.

- Atario

July 30, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To understand why democrats are successfully accused of "flip-flopping", while that label fails to stick to republicans we first need to clarify the definition of flip-flopping as it is often mis-used by the media. Politicians do change their positions over their careers, and even across an election season. This is not a bad thing. Who would want a leader that is so stubborn as to never change a thought across a 30 or 40 years career? Even in a single election cycle, politicians bargain with other members of their party to gain support. As a result, they often accept positions they do not fully agree with in order to win on bigger issues. Flip-Flopping on the other hand is when a politician changes their position specifically based on the audience they are addressing or the most recent poll numbers. For example: Kerry loved his SUV when talking to auto workers, but the next day when speaking at an Earth day event, he despised SUV's. The reason democrats are more likely to flip-flop is a result of the coalitions they have built over the years. While republicans generally aim their campaigning at main stream Americans, democrats have dozens of special interest groups they have to appease. There is no way to appease them all without simply telling them what they want to hear.

- Bob W

July 30, 2008 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The flip-flop accusation is true. In Mr. Obama's case the reversals, part or total as just more glaring than usual. But why is this so and why is it so common? I think part of the enswer is that the US has not developed politically in a way that continually brings the most talented politicians to the fore. Writers get to be successful and well known because they write books that the public likes. Athletes follow the same path. But neither party seem to have found a way to do this. The hierarchy is not there to bring the best people along. Then, there is the bridge to cross between state and national politics. To be sure, not everyone wants to be President so some potentially qualified people are happy to stop half way there and enjoy being a senator or governor for as long as possible. (There are exceptions of course. The choice of Goldwater over Rockefeller was the culmination of a fight over the direction of the Repuublican Party. Goldwater won that fight but lost the election. However he paved the way for Reagan.) The result is that as far as presidential politics is concerned we have this sort of free-for-all every four years in which a number of very ambitious men and women compete before an audience of activists in each party. It so happens that Democratic party activists are much more to the left of the party nationally than their counterparts in the Republican party are with respect to their own right and center. Yes, the Republicans have the Religious Right to contend with but in general there is more harmony under their tent than is true of the Democrats, hence less need to change their views to satisfy a more unified party. Clinton was a centrist but all the other Democrat nominees in the past several decades have been men of the left. Perhaps I should exclude Gore; I'm not sure. Ergo, the left-wing winner of the Democratic nomination is naturally put in the position of flip-flopping in order to try to gather in not only the less radical members of his own party but also the very important - shall we say, decisive - independent voter. Fortunately, Mr. Obama still has the backing of the media. They may choke a bit on his palpable insincerity but for the momment are giving him the benefit of the doubt. We shall see whether this lasts until election day. The race is still young.

- Peter Roll

July 30, 2008 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#56 Hal brings up the issue of "totalizing ideologies". Exactly, Hal. The right's ventricle bleeds 1's and 0's, a goo in which predestination rules and any, however minute, skepticism of the necessity of fixed-belief is cue to cast off those Anne Hutchinsons who do query. As flip-floppers. I especially love those like #36 Shalesh, who claim "Democrats are too concerned with nuance" (whatever that means). You know, when you set to navigate waters with which you are uncertain, as is always the case in navigation, keeping in mind all of the imperatives matters. The absence of one input in any scenerio where it is presumed it will be present--Sunnis bucking Al Qaeda or Shiites quashing their own firey rebels so the Surge will be more effective--will result in a totally different outcome of events. The ability to map those inputs is wise and well within reason, even though it guarantees no one true path. Straying from which, of course, would be flip-flopping.

- white_spyder

July 30, 2008 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was hoping that you would try to address what it is about democrats that make them more susceptible to these character assassinations. Is poor character simply a more acceptable trait in a republican vs. democrat?

- Ed

July 30, 2008 at 8:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The premise of this article is that Republicans paint Democratic presidential candidates as “flip-floppers,” but Mr. Chait cites The New York Times and Time as proof of this phenomenon. Nobody, not even Mr. Chait, can possibly believe that these are “Republican” publications, or that Republicans wrote the articles that he cites. This must make one wonder if his evidence really supports the conclusion he draws. Sure, National Review is cited for the charge that Obama has moved to the center, but does anybody think he hasn’t? Or that it is a bad thing? The president represents the country. There are Republicans AND Democrats in the country. It would be irresponsible and frankly crazy not to move to the center for a presidential election. Moreover, even if Mr. Chait is right, this article makes a pretty lame observation. Sure, it was easy for Republicans to paint John Kerry as a flip-flopper because he made statements like, “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” However, the political impact of such charges against the other presidential candidates mentioned (Clinton, Gore, and now Obama) was or is minimal at most. Finally, does Mr. Chait really believe the following, “every four years, we have a Democratic candidate campaigning on health care, the minimum wage, education, Medicare, or Social Security, and a Republican candidate campaigning on themes like Trust, Courage, and so forth?” Is Mr. Chait such a devoted party member that he refuses to recognize that republicans (even if he doesn’t agree with them) have similar issues, which their candidates run on? Or has his zeal for the party left him in some sort denial? He loses integrity as a writer when he defines every single Republican presidential nominee as campaigning on “character” alone. Democrats and Republicans try to show their candidate’s character in a positive light and their opponents in a negative light. Grow up, Mr. Chait, this isn’t the good team versus the bad team.

- Charlie

July 30, 2008 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Generally speaking, there are a few basic types of people. They process information differently. Sensitive men tend to be liberal and they tend to deal with the world in similar ways. They are very good at certain things, e.g. looking at issues from many different angles. That can be very valuable - at times. But it also makes it more difficult to arrive at a decision. Because they see so many options, it's difficult for them to choose just one. The conservative male is much more inclined to know what he knows and stick to it - whether he is right or wrong. Less flip-flopping. If it turns out he is right, then the stubborness and absolutism is a good thing. And vice-versa. Thus, the two very distinct types of males have their pros and cons depending on a given situation. Give me a lefty to look at options, but give me a righty to make the decision and stick to it.

- slick

July 30, 2008 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why is the Democratic candidate always a flip-flopper?" The answer is simple - the Democrat's explanations for their flip-flops have so many more words in them than the Republican's do. Voters prefer more concise excuses.

- Paul

July 31, 2008 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's analysis may or may not be correct. However, if he is wrong, it is not because the most extreme Democratic candidates are nominated. Jimmy Carte in 1976 was not the most left-wing candidate - surely Jerry Brown was. Surely Ted Kennedy was more liberal in 1980. Bill Clinton in 1992 was the "new Democrat" and I seem to recall Jesse Jackson running unsuccessfully in 1984 and 1988. In 2000, Bill Bradley ran as the candidate of those disaffected with Clintonian triangulation. Surely John Kerry was more centrist than Howard Dean in 2004. How quickly they forget. So, will the Democrat-haters please stop their foolishness? It is simply false to assert that the Democratic party has nominated its most liberal choices, and then those ultra-liberals have betrayed their principles in the general election. The Democrats almost consistently since the McGovern debacle have chosen nominees who have tacked more to the center. If they are flip-floppers, then it is because the middle is a place of "on the one hand, but on the other." If you are going to argue that the Democrat nominate flip-floppers from some deep-seated defect of character, lets simply place it as the feet of the age we live in: a free-market era, an age where it is considered absurd to believe the government can solve problems. It surely takes more courage to be a liberal in 2008 than to be a conservative. Hence the greater tendency of Democrats to backpedal. I would only add: the opposite situation was in play between 1940 and 1980, when Republicans preferred moderates to conservatives, when the GOP made peace with the New Deal, and when William Buckley was a voice in the wilderness. All that said, I think Chait is on to something: I have long thought that "the character issue" was code for "you can't trust Democrats."

- Marc Sable

July 31, 2008 at 4:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The one thing you can say about G.W.Bush is that he never flip-flops on anything. I'm the decider. I know I'm always right, and nothing can ever change my mind. People who think sometimes change their minds. In order to NEVER change an opinion, it is important to NEVER think.

- abbiehoff

July 31, 2008 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a first generation immigrant. Like most Americans, I am liberal on majority of the social issues and moderate on economic issues and foreign policies. Overall my takes on issues should on average be closer to those of the Dems', yet I find myself time and time again prefer the Repub candidates for exactly the character factor. I agree that Bill Clinton was an above-average president (largely due to his centre stand on policies in office which is probably why the left wing dems are disappointed in him), though I never liked or trusted him and to this day believe he's a rotten human being. Obama in some ways is worse, his leftiest voting record in the senate scares me. He slickly talks about changes but none of his ideas are original. He's charmed the media for now to not dig in further into his pastor relationship and his property dealings. What do we really know about his true characters? I particularly admire McCain's last 8 years in the senate, where he worked with both parties to get bills passed and frequently courageously sided with the Dems on issues for what he beieved in. McCain's life is an open book, I may not agree with him on some issues, but he is with great character and I feel I can trust him. He went to Iraq out of concern for our troops and our country, whereas Obama seemed to be just doing it for a show - to win the presidential election. He is a saleman and a lawyer, a combination I simply find difficult to like or trust.

- choo

August 1, 2008 at 12:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama repeatedly attacks McCain by relating Bush to McCain, that is low-road practice as there are vast differences between Bush and McCain, whether on issues or personal characters. You are all fooled by Obama's slick tongue and phony charisma. I hope he does win in 2008 and US will start its inevitable way down and you Dems will get a dose of what you deserve. I can see China laughing now.

- paenme

August 1, 2008 at 1:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As Chait implies but doesn't say, there is a legitimate basis for some 'flip flopping' which is to say the understanding of an issue evolves not as public opinion on the issues evolves but as the underlying facts that drive any perspective on it do. Plenty of people could have been for invading Iraq originally, then against it when it became clear the rationale for doing so was based on less than accurate information (without getting into the basis of the inaccuracy, i.e. stupidity or deliberate misleading). Or, eggs and coffee are bad for you...add a little more science...oops, they're good for you. Those who identify the Dems as waffling because American won't elect a socialist/statist as such have a good point. The other point is, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Obama can be as professorial as he wants -- some of us (even those of us with multiple ivy degrees and reasonable IQs) had enough of school in school. Don't profess (while holding rallies in football arenas). Show some administrative capability. But what was that thing about those who can do, do, and those who can't, I can't seem to remember now. Must have been speechify.

- Andrew

August 5, 2008 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ster #83: That is just a wonderful posting. Thank you.

- Texas99

August 24, 2008 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republican machine is rich and could care less about people. They have no morals that I can see. They are much like a child molesting priest telling me I can't take communion because I'm divorced. They lie they cheat they steal and anything else they dang well please, stand up and say I'm moral and the public believes them. This all has Karl Rove written all over it and the intent is to keep money and power in power no matter what it costs. If anyone is ignorant enough to vote for a candidate with the same policies we've had for the last 8 years? Then they need to be educated as to why our economy is in the toilet and we are fighting a war over oil and not spreading liberty and freedom as the Republicans would have you to believe. A power play that said Bushie gets his way no matter what the cost in lives and that China now owns us. Socialism is not a bad word - it simply values caring for all. We pay taxes which provides Bush and Cheney the best health care available and their full salary income at retirement from our SS account which by the way they never contribute to. Capitalism has come to mean winner take all, he with the most houses wins. No matter what it cost the rest of us. There's so much wrong with this scene, and the people who vote for McCain are foiled once again. Problem is, most of us can't afford to go further down the tubes because Rove has figured out how to bamboozle the public with cheap one liners. I think the Media is largely Republican and I think they and Rove bashed Hillary out of this race because they already had hatching in the wings the plot to undue Obama which is after all, considerably easier than beating the Clinton machine. Dirty dogs. They are wiping their feet on the evangelicals yet again, and with a Stepford candidate for vp, women as well. Throw out some whistle bait for the old self righteous codgers and it is remarkable how cute the words barracuda and pit bull with lipstick become. How can we let that happen?

- Shirley

September 10, 2008 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close