I am really curious about the topic of "flip-flopping." There seems to be a great deal of animosity for those who supposedly flip flop on the topics related to family policy. For example, one of the current candidates is being accused of flip-flopping about their beliefs on abortion. If a candidate says that he or she does not believe in abortion at one point but decided to change perspectives on the topic, is that a weakness or a strength?
I am one who was absolutely PRO LIFE; however, after doing much thinking about the topic, I am still anti-abortion, but am not for creating public policy to limit abortions.
Do you agree with me? Why or why not?
I think it depends on the context. When a change in stance appears as a cynical way to win votes, then a flip-flopping politician should be called out as an opportunistic politician.
ReplyDeleteThe burden of proof should be high for an office-seeker who has changed their views. Mitt Romney is now trying to come off as pro-life although he acted pro-choice when he was governor of Massachussetts. Maybe he could tell the Republican base today that he was Pro-Life all along but he had to say it to persuade all those liberals to vote for him. Would confessing to be a double agent work on the republican base? Lying for the greater good?