In Praise Of The Biggest Political Sin

Candidates have been calling their opponents names throughout history. Here in America, they've been called, "a hell raiser," "a tax raiser," ""an abolitionist," "a pro-slaver," "a hawk," "a dove," "a communist," "a fascist," "an intellectual," or "an idiot." But lately, there is one charge that is capable of doing in a candidate more than any of the others. It is the accusation that someone is a "flip flopper."

I'm not sure when flip-flopping became the greatest of political sins, but it seems to have established itself as Number One. Not only do candidates charge each other with flip-flopping, but newspapers, television shows, and internet blogs dissect every word a candidate has ever uttered and every vote he has ever cast searching for a fatal flip-flop.

Admittedly, some of the flip-flops by both Presidential candidates in the current campaign have been formidable. This being an Olympic year, a few of their maneuvers might be deemed "double somersaults with a twist." But I don't want to go into the specifics of each of their flip-flops here. I want to talk about the flip-flop itself.

Obviously, if a candidate changes his or her position on an issue for purely political reasons, voters and journalists should be cynical about that new position. But even if politicians change their positions because they've studied the issues and changed their minds, or if the situation has changed, they're still attacked as a dreaded flip-flopper.

Why should it be an important quality for a politician to never change his or her mind? Why is it considered good if someone sticks to a position even if it's obvious to everyone that he or she is wrong? I know of a certain President who seems to pride himself on not being a flip-flopper. No matter what the evidence, he's always stuck to his position that the war in Iraq was necessary. Throughout, no matter how disastrous things were going, he's always said that the war was progressing well. (I think he still may believe there were Weapons of Mass Destruction there). He's never admitted that the way we've borrowed money from China and other countries has caused problems for us. In fact, when President Bush was interviewed at the Olympics, he stated that America "doesn't have problems."

Do we really want another President who never admits he's wrong and never changes his positions?

Think about your everyday life. Who do you like better: the guy who stubbornly insists he's right even when all the facts show he's wrong, or the guy who says, "I'm sorry. I was wrong about this." Who's the better doctor, the one who stands by his original diagnosis despite new information, or the one who says, "The new tests reveal I was wrong?"

And in personal relationships, are you happy with your spouse or significant other when he or she sticks to an opinion no matter what? Of course not. We prefer to be with someone who is "big enough" to flip-flop at times. We have respect for people who say things like: "I wasn't going to vote for that guy you like, but after reading about him, now I will." "Wow, I guess a person can be too thin." "You're right. I shouldn't have turned left there." "Now that I've gotten to know her, I don't find your old college roommate that annoying." "I'm still not going to try rabbit, but I admit it – snails do taste good." "I was wrong. A mattress can be too hard."

So why do we insist that our political officials should never change their minds about anything? Flip-flopping has somehow gotten a bad name. Maybe we should change its name from flip-flopping to something else. How about instead of flip-flopping, we call it, "Changing One's Position After Reconsidering An Issue?" That's perfect.

Who am I kidding? That's way too long. Stupidest name I ever heard. Maybe we should just go back to "flip flop." Of course, then people will say I'm a flip-flopper for flip-flopping flip-flopping.

Congressional Games

When little kids take a break from their schoolwork and go on the playground to play games and let off some steam, it's called, "recess." When members of Congress take a break from their work, it's also called "recess." I wonder what games our lawmakers play during their recess. Maybe "hide and don't vote," "take the stuffed envelope," or the word game, "talk long, but say nothing." When kids have recess, it only lasts a matter of minutes. Congress' recess is for the whole month of August. I understand why kids need their break, but why do members of Congress need theirs? And is this really the right time for them to be taking a month off from work?

Generally, when Senators and Congress-men and -women are working, they only work three or four days a week. I understand that it's important for them to get out of Washington and spend time with their constituents at home. And I guess if I felt that every member of the Senate and House were sitting down every day with his or her constituents discussing the issues, I'd understand the importance of their recess. Call me "cynical," but I don't think that's what these men and women are doing all day.

Do you know anybody in any other profession that gets as many vacation days as those who represent us in Washington? As is usual in politics, things are backwards. Shouldn't those who've been entrusted with the responsibility of keeping our country safe and secure work more not less than people who have other jobs? The only people who work less than those in Congress are those who have been put out of work by those in Congress.

I agree with John McCain on this one. I think the recess should be cancelled and Congress should go back to work now. Even if it's just for the sake of appearances, with all of our problems -- the economy, the war, the environment -- is this really a time for our elected officials to say to us, "We sure hope things don't get worse while we take our break. See you after Labor Day?"

Historically, the summer recess came about because of the oppressively hot weather in Washington. But now I think they could survive there, because they've got this new-fangled invention called "air conditioning."

As much as I am for this idea, I'm aware that it is not such a simple, clear-cut issue. There are some benefits to having the Congressional recess. In the past, I have pointed out that the fewer days that Congress is in session, the fewer days the lawmakers have to mess things up. While they're away, they can't vote for invading a country, they can't raise taxes on the poor or lower them on the rich, and they can't vote themselves a raise. And I don't think it's just my imagination, but each day that they've been out of Washington, gas prices at the pump seem to go down a couple of cents.

But there's one aspect of this that pushes me over to the side of "recess is over, get back to work." John McCain has said that if Congress goes back to work, he'd suspend his campaign and he challenged Barack Obama to do the same thing. That sounded like the best idea I've heard from either candidate. If they both suspended their campaigns and went back to work in Washington, the American people would get a "recess."

We'd get a break from this interminable campaign. Sure, they could still make commercials and hold news conferences. But if the candidates were really busy doing their job, they wouldn't have as much time to deride each other and assault the airwaves with hundreds of thousands of words repeating their messages over and over again. There would be no front page and prime time analysis of everything every family member or friend of the candidates says or does ... or wears. We could still be responsible citizens and not think about this presidential campaign for a month. That's the kind of recess this country could really use.