Why do you get labeled a "flip flopper" if you change your mind???

• BoatShoes

  In my opinion, this is one of the worst consequences of our modern political world; to be labeled, a hypocrite, a flip flopper or weak minded, or any other adjective when you change your opinion on something.
  
  Perhaps people think you don't have "firm convictions" if you change your mind. But, I ask, why is it good to have so many "firm convictions" when reasonable minds might disagree on so many things?
  
  For instance...President Obama...although many thought he was wrong for having the terror trial in New York, changed his mind and this is seen as a failure rather than a "coming to your senses"
  
  Mitt Romney, has been both for and against abortion...a heavily politicized topic with many strong voices on both sides...and was trashed for "flip flopping."
  
  I personally once was one of the few who thought Q'Doba was a better choice than Chipotle believing that Q'Doba's Queso cheese sauce and tastier hot sauce won the day but have since converted and now believe that Chipotle over all offers fresher meat and topipings and these things outweigh what Q'Doba has to offer.
  
  What say you? Is flip flopping really that bad?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Depends on the issue and the reason for the flip flop. If the person simply says, I was wrong, this method that was better explained to me, or circumstances have changed then I see no problem with it.
  
  Now, if it to gain political power or leverage, then I have an issue with it.
• majorspark

  

  Depends on what the reasons are for the flip flop. If it is based on a logical recognition that ones previous opinion was incorrect based on previously unknown facts, others strong arguements, or other factors that may arise over time.
  
  In my opinion it becomes bad when one flip flops for frivolous reasons. Pandering to a group and not showing strong leadership. It makes one appear weak and phony.
  
  The only group that flip flops as easily as a pandering politician is a young single man in pursuit of female "companionship".
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Constant flip flopping if you're a politician shows a lack of leadership to me.
  
  I'm not saying you can't change or your mind, but you better be able to eloquently express your reasons for changing.
  
  The trial of SKM is not so much a case of "flip flop" to me as it is an over-reaching federal government, driven by a few ideologues (specifically Holder) doing something that goes contrary to the core beliefs of most Americans.
  
  At the same time, the folks who are being subjected to this idealistic change don't WANT to be a part of this social experiment and see it as potentially dangerous, which is why you have office holders threatening lawsuits and congressional folks threatening to pull the plug on funding.
  
  Make no mistake: I believe Obama and Holder are finding out that many of the things they want go contrary to the direction most Americans want to see this country go.
  
  This isn't flip flopping, per se. It's a few politicians being very clearly reminded who put them in office.
• believer

  

  If a politician flip flops for political expediency, it's demonstrates weakness and a willingness to take the path of least resistance. That person displays a clear lack of integrity and backbone. He or she needs scrutinized and probably shouldn't be in a position of leadership.
  
  Conversely, if a politician flip flops or has a clear change of mind due to heartfelt review of the facts and can subsequently communicate that change of mind to the electorate, then that person is worthy of respect. That person demonstrates an ability to see all points of view in a rational manner and deserves consideration of a leadership position.
• dwccrew

  

  Depends on the situation. Flip flopping on certain issues is different than flip flopping your entire ideology (which some of these politicians do).
  
  As Ptown stated, to gain political leverage or power is what I have issue with. If someone genuinely didn't understand something or researched it and found an alternative and better route, I have no problem. It's when they change their beliefs to the popular belief that is sickening.
• Con_Alma

  Is it really that bad? I'm not sure how bad is that bad.
  
  I do believe the following. I vote for someone with similar core convictions and ideologies as mine and do so expecting them to represent my views with their work. If those key views that help define what their beliefs are change how can I be certain the representative will be working in a manner that will be acceptable to me? I can't.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I flip-flop/change my mind constantly. But, I always just assumed it was because I was a woman.
  AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
• bman618

  If the politican has an honest change of mind, that's okay. But a lot of time we see them changing several positions to what the poll number say. That is a flip-flop.
• NNN

  

  I think the culture of politics is currently based around the idea of taking an ironclad stance that allows no wiggle room. If someone speaks in absolutes during an election year and during a time in office, it makes a change of position seem dishonest.
  
  If I were running for office and someone asks me about, say, health care, my response would be something like this:
  
  "I believe that every American should have access to affordable health care. I also am of the opinion that government involvement tends to lead to more problems than can possibly solved, to say nothing of the fact that putting bureaucrats in charge of something that is as private and important as health care isn't something I'd advocate. If elected, I intend to sit down with my fellow Representatives and take a hard look at the current restrictions that are in place and see if there is something government-mandated that is negatively affecting health care access to a greater extent than they'd ever admit."
  
  Yes, it's longer than a soundbite. Yes, it's noncommittal. But, if I determine that government involvement were correct, it would also be impossible to come back and say, "A ha! He's a liar and a flip-flopper!" Part of the problem with modern politics is that enormously complicated issues are whittled down to a two-line platform that is painted in black and white.
  
  Let me ask you this. Which of the following statements is more correct?
  1) We all have to pitch in to do our part and take care of each other, and anything else is selfish and short-sighted
  2) It's up to the individual to take care of himself, and anything else encourages irresponsibility
  
  Obviously, they're both true. But don't these two statements sound almost exactly like a basic moral platform of a certain two parties?
• BoatShoes

  NNN wrote: I think the culture of politics is currently based around the idea of taking an ironclad stance that allows no wiggle room.

  This is more of the problem I think...it seems like people suggest that a candidate doesn't have "firm guiding principles" if he speaks open minded or about a willingess to see all side of the issue.
• Swamp Fox

  I think that the "anti-flip-floppers" want a candidate who once he makes up his mind about something will not change. It shows his belief is strong...that he has studied carefully the various repercussions and has decided that he is correct and no further adjustments need be made. It shows strong and determined leadership. It shows that he has what it takes to make the tough decisions and stick to his guns. Some of the policies that come to mind in history that had this type of consistent support and opposed any differing opinions would be things like slavery, torture, prostitution, tax cuts to cure whatever is wrong with the economy, dog fighting for fun and profit, no "free lunches" for starving children, eradication of social Security. privatizing everything that is now government directed, and, lest I forget, a strong and abiding faith in the noble Christian principles that have guided us through history.