Mitt Romney and Flip-Flopping

During the 2004 Presidential election, the "flip-flop" term became extremely popular among conservatives to describe/defame John Kerry. It was even chanted during speeches at GOP rallies. Leading up to the 2008 Presidential election, the same term has again become popular, this time by those opposed to Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.

I don't understand the obsession with this word. Does anyone really expect all issues (and people, for that matter) to be black or white? Do people not understand the changes that can be evoked with increased experience and information? Issues ranging from the choice to invade Iraq to the morality of abortion severely divide the country for the very reason they are morally complex - which complexity is further compounded by the processes of democracy and law.

On the Iraq invasion issue, many conservatives seem to be so upset with Democrats who supported the invasion initially, simply because they later said it was a bad idea. Why? Consider a function Iraq_decide(x, t) which is used to decide whether to invade Iraq using information x at time t, with a positive result indicating an invasion and a negative one indicating no invasion. It is possible that Iraq_decide(x__1__, t__1__) > 0 AND Iraq_decide(x__2__, t__2__) < 0? Of course it is. Granted, it would be a much different issue if a candidate voted for the invasion and then pretended he/she never liked the idea, but the expectation that someone must never change their mind in order to maintain a consistent philosophy (and also be free of political pandering) is ridiculous.

The issue with Mitt Romney and abortion is similar. While campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said abortion should be safe and legal regardless of his personal beliefs. In support, he described an experience when he "was a young man in the 1960s and his brother-in-law's sister - an engaged-to-be-married teen who became pregnant - died in a botched illegal abortion." Now, in seeking the Republican nomination for President, he "describes himself as pro-life, argues that Roe v. Wade should be replaced with state abortion regulations, and cites the science he studied amid a legislative debate over embryonic stem cell research as the basis for his position." At one point in his life, his knowledge and experience pointed to a personal stance against a practice he felt should remain safe/legal, and now his experience and knowledge point to the same personal stance with a shift in its application politically. This move does not require the compromise of spine nor philosophical stance, but only a mind open enough to take in new information and re-evaluate itself.

It would be different if he had flip-flopped on a campaign promise, but that isn't the case. As he explained in the Boston Globe after vetoing a contraception bill: "Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it." Although he has been consistently portrayed as a pro-choice governor in a liberal state who is flip-flopping into a pro-life Presidential candidate for a conservative party, Romney was able to veto legislation in support of a pro-life position by keeping his campaign pledge. Why didn't Mitt just run on a pro-life platform in the first place? Again, because the issue is complicated. Consider the following comments made by Mr. Romney in the same article:

"I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

"Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state's democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority."

Such comments are exhibitive of someone who recognizes personal/religious beliefs are not the end-all in politics - of someone who understands the nature of a representative democracy and the checks and balances established by the Constitution. (Ironically, this understanding is exactly what trumps the protests of many others who oppose Romney on the grounds that he will become some sort of puppet for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if elected.)

It's time to realize thoughtful movement within the gray is not indicative of political pandering or "flip-flopping," but one of the qualities many accuse the current President of lacking: the ability to deftly integrate personal beliefs and politics, as well as admit/correct one's mistakes.

Star This to Save in Your Profile