Flip-Flopping

This is not really about politics, it’s about us.

“Flip Flopping” is a currently popular political phrase. It is used every time a politician reverses a previously held position on the War in Iraq, off-shore oil drilling, tax-hikes, etc. It is a deadly insult. We seem to want to elect politicians to come into office, or even the campaign for office, with developed opinions on every issue, set in stone, never to change.

I used to love the old Dennis Miller Show on HBO. Each week he would do a long rant on a particular topic using strong language, numerous allusions, heavy sarcasm and an extensive vocabulary. He would go on and on for five minutes, getting more worked up and more extreme in his opinions. Then he would stop and say “But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.” I use that phrase a lot.

But a politician can never say that. They can never be unsure, admit to not knowing something or not having an established opinion on every topic. They cannot risk saying something the networks can play over and over and over to embarrass them. They cannot risk contradicting a previously expressed opinion. It might look foolish, stupid or untrustworthy. It would NOT make them look like someone we could trust, elect and then forget about, sure that they were busily at work serving our, and only our, interests.

We have seen, too often, that politicians can change their minds for money. We hate corruption and any change of opinion makes us suspicious. We know that politicians will say things to get votes, whether they mean it or not. This is why we fear the flip flop, we worry that we are being scammed, manipulated, used.

So we expect our politicians to be a little close-minded. At least, close-minded about the things that WE don’t like.

This occurred to me when I read about a debate between two popular writers of economics books, (yes, there really are two.) Malcom Gladwell (The Tipping Point, Blink) was talking about his opponent, Steven Levitt (Freakonomics.)

“Levitt got up and made his case. I got up and made mine. But halfway through, I glanced over at Levitt and had a realization that I’m not sure that I’ve had before with an intellectual opponent – that if I made my case persuasively and cogently enough, he would change his mind. He was, in other words, listening.
…Levitt believes that if we are to have an honest conversation about things like crime and abortion, we are obliged to consider those phenomena in all their dimensions. It takes a certain amount of courage to make an argument like that. And by the way, if you can come up with some good evidence to the contrary, Levitt will listen, and if you’re really convincing, he’s the sort of person that will change his mind. That takes courage too.”

We can admire a scientist who changes his mind based on ever increasing information, but not a politician. That is sad, but is partly the fault of the politicians and their campaign committees. They must be presented as all-wise, all-knowing Paternal Figures that we can believe in. And we DO want to believe in them so we may turn these pressing matters over to them to take care of for us. That is why we feel betrayed if they neglect their duty or, worse still, change their mind and side with the opposition.

Could we ever see a major policy shift as an act of courage? Only if a politician doesn’t deny changing and takes personal responsibility for changing, such as:

• Here’s what I previously thought:
• Here’s why I thought it was right: (this step is necessary)
• Here’s what I think now:
• Here’s why I think this is better:

They should not distance themselves from their previous positions; rather embrace them and their adherents. Then show the new, better way and inspire others to evolve also, Like Saul of Tarsus or Malcom X.

I have said before that I believe we currently have two presidential candidates with character and patriotism. I suspect that over the next few months we will hear a lot about flip flopping. It has become a major tool in the professional political consultant’s arsenal. But look harder, look past the sound bites that are offered.

Is there any real reason or explanation for the change? Is it just political expediency or were they actually knocked off their horse on the road to Damascus? Did they sell out or were they open-minded and convinced by persuasive and cogent arguments? We live in a time of rapid change, but that is not a reason to change rapidly without thorough investigation and analysis. Can they show us evidence of this investigation and analysis?

In a time of rapid change a leader and/or manager must master the skills a rapid investigation, analysis and dissemination of the new information. This is true especially when the new conflicts with old beliefs or patterns of behavior. Then the leader must do what all great leaders do, motivate and inspire to advance the common good.

It could even work here.

“But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”