My name is Daniel and I'm a flip-flopper.
When the prospect of war with Iraq arose in 2002, I supported the notion that an Iraq with weapons of mass destruction in a post-Sept. 11 world could not stand. But as the war unfolded, the lack of effective post-war planning became evident, and as the weapons of mass destruction that were offered as the cornerstone of the justification of the invasion of Iraq were not found, I changed my position. I was angry -- I'm talking Zell Miller angry -- with President Bush for putting the United States in such an unnecessarily difficult position.
Contrary to what the Republican National Committee may tell me, there was nothing wrong with reevaluating my viewpoint. In fact, it was responsible and independent thinking.
This brings me to take issue with the environment of the debate, or lack thereof, in the current presidential contest. A variety of new terms have been brought to the forefront of the American lexicon thanks to the presidential campaign. Phrases such as "swift boat," "527," "AWOL," and the omnipresent "flip-flop."
Watching delegates at the GOP Convention boisterously chant "flip-flop, flip-flop" while flailing their arms from side to side was the seminal moment in Campaign 2004 for me. It served to illustrate the degeneration of debate into simplistic talking points and the deafening of its participants to a complex world. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the importance of an election and the sophistication of the debate in the American political system.
The reduction of the great national debate to mere talking points, which is the fault of both political parties, threatens our own independent thinking and quest for the truth -- necessities for a healthy democratic process. Who needs to form his own opinions when chief White House political strategist Karl Rove can do it for him?
Look beyond the $100 million that the Republican attack machine spent to label John Kerry as a "flip-flopper." It is unfortunate that with American soldiers bogged down in Iraq amid an rising insurgency, an increasing number of Americans without health insurance and poverty at record levels, the words that will be synonymous with Campaign 2004 are "flip-flop" rather than "intelligent" or "sophisticated."
And what's in a flip-flop?
In 1916, while Europe was engulfed in the First World War, President Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection under the banner "he kept us out of war." However, as Germany reinstituted unrestricted submarine warfare and American shipping was mercilessly targeted, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany in April 1917, a mere three months after being inaugurated for a second term under the non-interventionist message. The threat assessment changed and as a responsible leader, Wilson made decisions to react to the fluid situation to best ensure American security. Wilson committed an incredible flip-flop. He was flipping and flopping head over heels all the way back to Princeton.
Did Wilson make the right decision to bring the United States into the Great War? Would President Bush and the neoconservatives in his administration think Wilson made the prudent decision to "make the world safe for democracy?"
As the 1960s raged on and the war in Vietnam became more tenuous, President Johnson did not recognize a failed policy when it existed and "stuck to his guns." How would history have been different if Johnson had seen the failures in the policy and made the proper adjustments?
The truth, all too often the first casualty in American politics, is that all politicians flip-flop. The Republicans, with hundreds of millions of dollars in hand, have successfully told half of the story and painted John Kerry as an unsteady figure in times of change.
The President recently praised the independent 9/11 Commission's final report, the same commission that he initially opposed. Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman initially proposed the idea of a Department of Homeland Security, which President Bush opposed, then later agreed upon. In fact, a massive chasm exists between the rhetoric of candidate Bush in 2000 and the actions of President Bush on a host of issues, ranging from nation building to humility in U.S. foreign policy.
This is excusable. Sept. 11, 2001 happened and the entire geopolitical dynamic was transformed, requiring new policies and approaches.
The problem lies in the hypocrisy of the Republican attack machine. Whenever John Kerry alters his positions in the reaction to changes in reality he is declared a "flip-flopper." When the president does the same thing, it is "steady leadership."
Talking points are just that. Turn the point into a question mark.
