At the risk of looking like I'm ego-defending, let me say that in my view, all of this stinks to me like politicking. The question isn't how many times you change your views, but what views you change and why.
Changing views in response to changing times, new information, or more thought and experience is healthy. I have done it many times--it's evidence of a wisdom and open-mindedness, and no less so in politicians.
Changing core views is evidence of major intellectual upheaval, which is healthy from time to time; changing incidental views is evidence of intellectual growth, and is something that should be constantly happening.
On the other hand, frequently and ill-reasoned changes of view (and more so the more central to your beliefs the views are) bespeak an intellectual frailty if they're sincere, and a two-facedness if they aren't. Both of those are unhealthy, and in a politician, they mean the person can't really be trusted to champion the view.
To illustrate, the biggest flip-flop Kerry is criticized on is his service in Vietnam and later antiwar activities. There are respecable and disrespectable ways that could have come about. His reasoning might go like this:
Imaginary John Kerry wrote:While I was in Vietnam, I saw the troops doing some things that disturbed me. But already being in the midst of a war, I didn't waver; I fulfilled my duty and fought my best for my country. When I came back, I decided that based on what I'd seen, the war itself was unjust, so I protested against it, and told the truth the best I was able to. Now as I look back so many years later, I am at peace with my service; I still think the war was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that I served my country with honor. I think I can still be proud of that.
On the other hand, it might go like this:
Imaginary John Kerry wrote:I served in Vietnam because I wanted to establish myself as a patriot and a war hero for my later political expliots. So I went over there, earned as many medals as I could as fast as I could, and got out as soon as I could. When I came back, the political anti-war sentiment was strong, and my veteran status stood me in good stead to be very popular as I argued against the war. Nowadays, the military is in political fashion again, so I can use my Vietnam experience to paint myself as a proud, military man.
One of those is totally respectable. One is totally repulsive. One shows decency and growth, and the other shows dishonesty and treachery. There may be other narratives as well--neither of these may be very close to the truth. What's the real John Kerry like? What made him change his mind--or are these apparent contradictions part of a larger, complex, cohesive view? At best I can try to guess from what he says, how he acts, and so forth; so can you. But the sheer occurance of a change of views--even one so obviously important as Kerry's views on Vietnam are to him--is not meaningful. It's not the what, it's the why.
Likewise, the most criticized flop-flop of Bush's has been on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What were his reasons? They may have been like this:
Imaginary George W. Bush wrote:Just after 9/11, I and everyone else knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction--all the intelligence pointed that way. Saddam's open hostility meant terrorists would get their hands on them sooner or later, and waking up to a mushroom cloud over LA is not a risk I'm willing to take. I knew then that such a threat was no longer tolerable, that we had waited too long to finish what we started with Saddam. So I went to congress and sought permission to declare war, and having gained it, invaded Iraq. Now, a year or so later, the weapons I thought he had haven't turned up, other than a single gas-loaded shell here and an empty warhead there--hardly the destructive power I expected. Are they buried underground somewhere? Smuggled across a border? Never existed, and Saddam was bluffing? I may never know. Regaurdless, given his ambitions and propensities, I know he would have never given up until he obtained them. I am confident I did the right thing.
Or it may have gone like this:
Imaginary George W. Bush wrote:I'd always wanted to go to war with Iraq. That sort of thing plays well with my conservative base--it'd be a pushover victory, and I'd come out looking like a glorious war president. It'd help the economy, too. I knew Iraq would be a threat when it had weapons of mass destruction, and had aspirations to get them, but hadn't achieved those aspirations yet. Nonetheless, I got the intelligence guys to crank out a lot of information that said Iraq probably did have those weapons, and I hyped it enough to scare the nation into going to war. Now that the war is over, I see I miscalculated--the people have longer memories than I thought they would, and the absence of the weapons bothers them. Nonetheless, the best I can do is try to feign that I was mistaken.
One of these is respectable--a rational man doing the best he can do. And one is despicable. Again, neither of these narratives may be right--what does the real George W. Bush think? I can do my best to glean things from what he's said and how he's acted; sometimes people tell you straight up what they think, and then again sometimes they lie. But once again, we have a flip flop on an obviously important issue--and once again the "why" matters so much more than the "what."
Long lists of who's flip-flopped on what, without any chance for the person in question to explain their views, are often misleading and certainly not helpful. Sometimes what they list as flip flops aren't even propery changes of view. Consider item #30 on the list Genghis linked to:
Bush Flip Flop site wrote:Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
â?¦Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
Simply clicking the links and reading the full context reveals clearly non-conflicting statements:
George W. Bush, in April 2004, wrote:We are in a long war. The war on terror is not going to end immediately. This is a war against people who have no guilt in killing innocent people. That's what they're willing to do. They kill on a moment's notice because they're trying to shake our will, they're trying to create fear, they're trying to affect people's behaviors. And we're simply not going to let them do that.
And my fear, of course, is that this will go on for a while -- and, therefore, it's incumbent upon us to learn from lessons or mistakes, and leave behind a better foundation for Presidents to deal with the threats we face. This is the war that other Presidents will be facing as we head into the 21st century.
One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can. That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies. A hopeful society is one more likely to be able to deal with the frustrations of those who are willing to commit suicide in order to represent a false ideology. A free society is a society in which somebody is more likely to be able to make a living. A free society is a society in which someone is more likely to be able to raise their child in a comfortable environment, and see to it that that child gets an education.
George W. Bush, in August 2000, wrote:Lauer: You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?
President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.
Lauer: So Iâ??m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
President Bush: I donâ??t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world â?? let's put it that way. I have a two-pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. Iâ??m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness and must continue to lead. To find Al-Qaeda affiliates who are hiding around the world and want to harm us and bring â??em to justice â?? we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the Al Qaedaas we knew it. The longterm strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. There's some who say, â??You know certain people can't self-govern and accept, you know, a formal democracy.â?? I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.
Superficially contradictory, these two statements are both representations of the same view that the ultimate strategy in the war on terror is culture change--the spread of liberty and democracy. Whatever he might have meant by "I don't think you can win..." he clearly didn't mean he thought the war was hopeless, since he goes on to outline the strategy for victory. Did he mean winning was uncertain? Or that it couldn't be done in four years? Or that it was Muslims, not us, that would win it for themselves? Hard to say. But painting these two pieces as a flip flop is certainly misleading, and an example of poor interpretation.
I tried to find an example in Cuda's "Kerry flip flops" site that was as clearly misleading as the above, and I must admit I couldn't find one. Tell your own stories about that--the left might say that's my bias showing through, and the right might say that's because those flip flops really -are- suspicious in nature. Ah well, what can I say? I do try to keep these things evenhanded, and I really couldn't find anything.
I did find some things that seemed cheap, though. Quoting statements Kerry made in 1986 and 2003--*SEVENTEEN* years apart--on such a historically active issue as selecting supreme court justices in the context of supporting abortion, for example. Seventeen years is -plenty- of time to revise an opinion on a tangential piece of a historically active and important topic. Citing that as an example of a flip flop defintely leans in the "baloney" direction.
Perhaps it will well illustrate the difference to note that both sites list the candidates as flip flopping on the same issue, though to differing degrees and in differing ways.
Kerry Flip Flops Site wrote:In 2002, Kerry Signed Letter â??Urgingâ?
