The discourse of flip-flops and authenticity

The New Republic's Jon Chait has written the best piece to date on the problems with using flip-flops as a metric of authenticity. Here's the core of his argument:

The Talmudic exercise of counting flip-flops, though, tells you little about a politician's ideological malleability. Anybody who spends enough time in elected politics will rack up a flip-flop or two. George W. Bush started out pro-choice and Dennis Kucinich pro-life. Both switched sides eventually, but nobody would accuse either of being an ideological weathervane. This is problem number one with the flip-flop obsession: Things that count as flip-flops often have no broader significance.

Problem number two is that changes that do have deep ideological significance often don't count as flip-flops. In 1992, Romney voted for Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary. Two years later, Giuliani publicly endorsed Mario Cuomo. Romney isn't running on an anti-Tsongas platform today, but he's clearly running as the sort of man who would never vote for Tsongas, or any Democrat. Likewise Giuliani, whose conservative tribal appeal is based primarily on how much he hates liberals.

In McCain's case, his one or two flip-flops don't even begin to convey the enormity of his ideological metamorphosis. Over the last few years, Republicans and Democrats have both been downplaying his recent liberal history--Republicans, because they consider him a strong potential nominee whom they don't want to torpedo in the primaries; Democrats, because they consider him a strong potential nominee whom they do want to torpedo in the general election. As a result, nearly everybody has forgotten just how far left he moved a few years ago...

In particular, Chait correctly points out that standards used to judge candidates' authenticity are completely arbitrary:

The truth is, politicians at the serious-presidential-contender level are all willing to compromise to achieve larger goals. Flip-flopping really reveals less about a candidate's character than about his circumstances. Romney and Giuliani both hail from very liberal places. Going from mayor of New York or governor of Massachusetts to GOP presidential nominee without some flip-flopping would be impossible.

McCain, on the other hand, comes from conservative Arizona. Why, then, has he flip-flopped so much? Because he can. Everybody "knows" McCain is authentic. McCain knows everybody knows that. ("I would argue that I have not changed any of my positions, and if I did really change my positions on issues, that I would lose what is probably one of the greatest attractions that people have for me, and that is as a person who stands up for what he believes in.")

Conversely, everybody "knows" Hillary Clinton is phony. Therefore, Clinton can't budge an inch on her Iraq vote, and McCain has a license for a total ideological makeover. Does that mean Clinton has more character than McCain? No, just less room to maneuver.

Last week, I made a similar point in the context of a New York Times article that framed Hillary Clinton as ultra-calculating:

The problem with this kind of coverage is that every politician is in some sense calculated. Their public persona always evolves over time and varies by context. But as a result of the conventional wisdom about authenticity, some politicians have their every move framed as calculated (Hillary, Gore) and some don't (McCain). It's completely arbitrary.

Sadly, reporters aren't usually reflective enough to understand this point. They're frequently captured by the conventional wisdom about candidates, and end up skewing their coverage to reinforce silly pre-existing narratives.

Comments

[Rob]

You certainly make a valid point. At the same time, it's not illegitimate for voters to consider the arc of a candidate's positions in trying to judge his or her authenticity and believability and in attempting to predict how he or she would govern.

Voters understand that a President will confront many issues that cannot be known now, so a candidate's character and weltanschung may be as important as his or her stated positions on today's issues. Moreover, even with respect to a candidate's positions on today's issues, voters have to judge to what extent the candidate's statements can be trusted. Changes in a candidate's positions over time are very much relevant to these voter assessments.

That's not to say that a candidate may not have an explanation for his or her changed views that's convincing to voters. But candidates who are unconvincing are likely to be regarded as insincere and unbelievable, and that's not an unreasonable inference. John Kerry may well have lost the last election because he tried to have it both ways on the $87 billion appropriation and was dumb enough to prove it in a sound bite. Were voters wrong to consider this a reflection of Kerry's character?