Sunday, November 13, 2011

Flip Floppers versus True Change

There is a rather excellent post from Marc Grove at The Right Sphere on how and why he "converted" from being a Liberal Democrat to a Conservative.  It is MUST reading.

In it, he makes a point that PEOPLE DO CHANGE.  What was a confession of belief in a previous life certainly doesn't necessarily predetermine what they believe now, or how it will impact a future action.  However, there was one line that I wanted to address:
to those that see a change in positions as a “flip flop” those that feel only you know what a true conservative or a real Republican is. Don’t be so sure you really do, don’t be so sure that people of deep conviction don’t have that  moment when they wake up and realize they were wrong.
Below is a comment I posted on his article, and am reposting here:

Wow.  Great vulnerability and power in your article.  I actually had not realized until I read this that prior to my "born again" experience, those adjectives could have easily described me, although I had no concern for politics.

I must slightly disagree with you on the issue of giving people a "pass" on the flip-flop issue.  People DO change absolutely.  But history is fraught with those who claimed to have "change"  - perhaps they thought they did - but when pressed, crumbled like a 2 alcoholic trying sobriety.

One of the reasons Bush 41 uttered "Read My Lips" was because he had a history of being a "moderate."  Both in speech and action.  He claimed that serving under Reagan had shown him the light.  Many of us believe he lost to Clinton (who didn't even get 50% of the vote) precisely because is waffling opened the door to Buchannan who was sick of people who would not stand for their conservative convictions.

It is easy to SAY anything.  We know people by what they do.  So has Romney suddenly "seen the light" on Global Warming, Abortion and Health Care?  We honestly don't know.  I'm not sure even ROMNEY knows.  He claimed he stood by every word in his book but indeed deleted that he wanted Romneycare for the nation in the 2nd printing.  I'd actually be willing to think that when he told NARAL, GLAAD and the Sierra Club he would be a stealth candidate for their cause he had changed - except he will not even own up to the obvious lie from a month ago.

Newt's philandering is a huge concern for me.  The reports of many high profile evangelicals like Dr. James Dobson and close family friends that talk about how devoted he is to Calista - make me want to believe him.  Frankly, as a pudgy 68 yr old I'm not sure he could GET anyone to sleep with him - but if you are willing to go against your principles in one thing - how do we know he wouldn't in others?

During the Obamacare debate all thought that the "Blue Dog" Dems would not vote for the bill since it was pro-abortion (or room for it).  When I looked up the record of Bart Stupak, yes - he had a very consistent prolife record.  But he had caved on so many other issues he had promised his constituents (taxes, other social issues, etc) that we should have been not all that shocked he sold out the deaths of the unborn for a cheap, non-binding letter and an appointment to his brother in law.

No one is perfect.  All of these candidates who actually HAVE government experience (and Cain on Tarp) have stuff they have to explain.  But we can't automatically give a "pass" to any candidate who claims they are now FOR something they showed real proof of being AGAINST a few years ago.  And much less if they made statements they would use deceit to hide their true values.

End of comment.  Please Read Marc's article here.


Post a Comment


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More