The Flip-Flop MInd: A Political Enigma

 

I suspect the vast majority of people have witnessed the “flip-flop” mind but have not thought all that much about it. To “flip-flop” is a very popular turn of phrase in politics where it is exclusively used to accuse another politician of ‘changing their position on an issue’. Because flip-flopping is used by politicians and against politicians they oppose or dislike, it is very clearly used to ascribe a negative attribute to the other(s). You’ve surely heard the “First he/she voted for/against the bill and then voted against/for the bill.” They “flip-flopped.” The whole notion of flip-flopping is contaminated with this negative context because of its political misuse. Who could possibly respect a politician who ‘changed their mind’ on anything?

Before you judge that even the idea that “flip-flopping” may not be bad, dishonest, duplicitous, or dishonorable because “politicians” say it is; at least consider some non-political contexts for which “flip-flopping” would be appropriately applicable and viewed as admirable and even necessary to any rational adult. After all, how would you account for most of the advancements in human knowledge?

Let’s start with John Maynard Keynes: “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” [Note: His quote is often modified to: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”] Now, you don’t hear any economists or other well-informed persons shouting “Flip-flopping” about Keynes; and you may remember that Mitt Romney used Keynes’ quote (the modified version) in defending his ‘change of view’ on an issue. In holding a position, I suspect many people expect that that position is based upon the ‘information’ / ‘facts’ that they know and believe are accurate / true. If someone finds out that the information / facts that they themselves used are not accurate or have changed in some meaningful way, I hope they don’t hold to the original view rather than their own improved understanding but that might be the case in some instances.

Then there is Einstein’s: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change.” [Note: If you want to argue over the exactitude of the quote, I propose discussing it in an arena more focused on that topic.] I prefer Einstein’s: “The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.” Change is not a surprising concept in the scientific community, at least not unless it is someone trying to change your eponymous theory(ies) which just chafes like no get-out. But ‘change’ is what science pursues, it seeks a better and more accurate explanation and understanding of our human knowledge. It isn’t the case that there might not be an instance where one scientific view, theory or even law changes based on some new knowledge and then yet more information is acquired which could cause the infamous “Flip-flop” event. You might remember Einstein included a “cosmological constant” in his theory of general relativity to provide for a “static” universe. Later, he removed it because it was no longer accurate to expect a “static” universe. It turned out there was a need for a force that accounted for the accelerating expansion of the universe. He reintroduced the cosmological constant to conform to emerging new data and noted his biggest blunder may have been his mistake regarding the need for a cosmological constant. Einstein did “flip-flop”, but I don’t think it would demonstrate that he shouldn’t have bur rather the exact opposite. “Flip-flopping” in science may be a sign of the brightest among the brightest. They can deal with learning without being concerned with the self-recognition that they had been in error prior to acquiring new information.

While I would never expect a politician to possess the wisdom to understand the importance of changing one’s view, it can surprisingly happen. As noted above Mitt Romney had learned the lessons that many who came before him had taught. Included in this line of notable figures was Winston Churchill. Churchill’s contribution came via his view: “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” So, while most American politicians seem to tremble and be afraid of called-out for “flip-flopping” there is ample reason to believe that the issue is not the “flip-flop” itself but whether the politician can present an informed, well-reasoned, and convincing explanation of why their change of view isn’t a weakness but a strength. It truly is a shame that politicians for the most part are unable to rise to the level of intellect required to comprehend why their fears are not about the act of “flip-flopping” but are due to their inadequate cognitive abilities.

Separate from notable figures who demonstrate the wisdom of adapting and being capable of changing one’s thinking and positions, there are other bases for realizing the value and importance of “flip-flopping” when circumstances demand. Critical Thinking is exactly such a skill. Critical Thinking is highly regarded as an essential educational objective to be achieve. And a key attribute of ‘critical thinking’ is the capacity to adapt one’s understanding based upon the analysis of facts and ideas.

At this point, I would hope that the notion of “flip-flopping” is not the cut-and-dried notion that it is used as particularly in politics. In fact, in politics it ought to be much more prevalent and deserve some attention. If that attention results in some appreciation, and maybe even change, in the listener then it might be that relevant “flip-flop” event which is called for. I hope in the future to see an outstanding politician demonstrate that they can deliver on having the integrity, intellect, and competency to “Flip-Flop” in an epic manner that resets the entire mind-set of voters.

Now, let’s look at the dark underside of the “flip-flop”. You may not have been expecting this after the preceding exultation about “flip-flopping”. It’s not that I am “flip-flopping” on “flip-flopping”; rather I wanted to create a context around the idea of “flip-flopping”. You already knew that “flip-flopping” was bad. Perhaps now you might, even if grudgingly so, allow for the necessity of looking at the substance upon which the “flip-flop” is occurring. We are now ready for an example.

This example is fortunately from reality, and sadly it is both true and telling at the same time. Oh yes, and the example is found within our economic, societal, and political insanity. What is most salient is that the “flip-flopping” that is occurring here is not seen as “flip-flopping” by the very people who get so bent out of shape when another person is branded with this act.

Let’s start with a question: How is the US Economy doing right now?

The answer of course depends upon whom you ask. It also depends upon what you ‘mean’ by the US Economy. The ‘meaning’ part of this question isn’t all that hard to get financial and economic experts to answer and to do so with some consistency. They will provide a variety of metrics and theories that are used to numerically compare current conditions with previous conditions and then provide an assessment of Is the current state of the economy better or worse than it was relative to a given time period. These experts will also provide their forecasts for where the economy is expected to go from here although there is much less consistency and agreement in their projections.

On the political side, the assessment of the Economy is usually driven more by how one’s aligns with the party in power than any consistency in how data is used to determine a relative measure. If it hasn’t occurred to you yet, that is a form of “flip-flopping” that isn’t noted by politicians who are often among if not leading proponents of the “flipped” view. To help illustrate this phenomenon, let’s use an excessively easy to access economic measure: the Stock Market. There are a number of different systems for measuring the Stock Market reported daily: the Dow (there are several), the S&P (there are several), the NASDAQ (there are several), and other financial views such as the Russell (there are several). Then there is a raft of financial metrics used to assess the economy that are to numerous to list them all. There is the Gross Domestic Product, Return on Investment, Inflation rate, Employment rate, … and the list goes on.

If the level that the Stock Market is at is used to define the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the Economy then this readily available data would make it easy to perform the political comparison of whomever is in office. Except that isn’t what happens. What happens is a “flip-flop”. The Stock Market climbs and the party in the majority claims that they, their policies, and the nation are doing well and the Stock Market being at all-time highs proves it. The reasoning seems acceptable. They are in-charge and things are going well. However, when they lose their positions in the majority, there is a strange discontinuity that occurs. The Stock Market data, and the claims that go with it, no longer apply consistently. The Economy is no longer doing great even though the same status persists. The Stock Market has continued to improve its value. The all-time high today is higher than it was when they were the political majority, but now the Economy is in trouble. The Stock Market is no longer a good measure of the Economy. A “Flip-Flop” of the classic type but not called out because it would be a self-referential contradiction. You would be “flip-flopping” on your own claim of success.

The same critique applies to someone who rejected the state of the Economy being good when the Stock Market improved when they were in the minority, and then used and relied upon the improvement in the Stock Market as a sign of their success is just as much a “flip-flopping” partisan.

What can we conclude about “flip-flopping” if it can be either a good thing or a bad thing? We can learn that you must understand the reasons for why someone or some group changed their view or position. We can learn that the reasons must be based upon consistency in the logic that is being applied, and that the data used to support the original position isn’t disregarded because it is inconvenient or would refute the change that you are making.

On the political side, what we can learn is that we need to be more focused upon ‘critical thinking’ than upon a claim of someone “flip-flopping”, or worse “flip-flopping” ourselves because that is the correct partisan thing to do rather than to question if the “facts have changed” and we need to change our view to improve our ability to act intelligently for ourselves and for the nation.