"I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights and to join together in marriage."
--Al Gore in 2008
Footage of Mitt Romney speaking about the importance of a woman's right to choose has been key in the arguments that he's a "flip-flopper." When shown in juxtaposition with clips of him speaking out against abortion, this footage confuses the viewer as to what Romney really thinks and whether anything he says can be trusted.
"Flip-flopper," of course, isn't new; Republicans used the term on John Kerry in 2004.
My initial reaction toward Al Gore's about-face on same-sex marriage was that it was too little, too late. A public figure speaking positively about same-sex marriage should be a good thing, and it would be, if only that same public figure hadn't been part of the administration responsible for the Defense of Marriage Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
The cynic in me finds it convenient that he's taking these "radical" stances now that he's not in office or running for office. Now that he's "Al Gore, private citizen," he can say all the things that he as a politician couldn't. And then I got really cynical and wondered what Hillary Clinton's view on same-sex marriage would be if she had nothing to lose, if she had no fear of alienating potential voters.
But then it occurred to me that maybe I should just be grateful Gore's taking any stance at all. Maybe he's not flip-flopping, but rather just evolving in his thoughts. Such progression in thoughts should be welcomed, not criticized, right?
If that's the case, then how to we judge Romney? Kerry?
"Gore's endorsement of same-sex marriage is a step up from his earlier position in support of domestic partner benefits for gays and civil unions—but not gay marriage. During his run in the 2000 presidential race, Gore stated he was in opposition of 'changing the institution of marriage as it is presently understood—between a man and a woman.'"
Al Gore Backs Gay Marriage [ChicagoPride.com]
Survey question
How should we define "flip-flopping"? If I change my mind on an issue, is that flip-flopping? Or is it only flip-flopping if I'm a politician? Does a person forfeit the right to change his or her opinion when becoming a politician?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Politicians are professional flip floppers. If you were to examine votes and stances on every issue you would find instances that some segment of voters consider flip flopping. Transactional politics is a vital element of democratic government.
So the questions become...
Is an instance of political opportunism relevant to the current campaign or issue?
How much actionable power did the politician posses when affirming the contrary in the past?
Was this vote/position a means to further an end that I agree with?
If the position taken represents a disagreeable sentiment among the electorate, do the politicans get credit for following the consticuency...perhaps instead of leading it?
And most importantly...
How will they approach this issue if given greater power to act?
What does this tell me about the core values of this candidate.
Do they have any?
The most devisive issues are the ones with the least wiggle room for flip flopping without consequence.
War, Abortion, Civil Rights...flip flopping in these areas is a bad sign.
Gore I forgive because he was a Pre-Cheney VP. He had little power. His relevance has grown and his statements now reflect his personal ideals.
But the Clintons seek further power and examples of opportunism/compromise concerning...DOM,NCLB,Civil Liberties,NAFTA, Dont Ask, and the War demonstrate an undesirable lack of conviction. Or perhaps better stated, convictions that align more closely with corporate government than the traditional ideals of the Democratic Party.
I agree with KRS2, . . . WHY you are changing your mind is a big thing. If you're pro-choice until you have your own baby (unplanned) and couldn't imagine life without him/her, that's pretty valid. If you're pro-choice until you start hanging out with some friends who are all pro-life and you would fit in better with the whole if you believed that way, and you change your mind AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, not cool. If, on the other hand, these friends are so convinced of their stance, frankly respond to your questions about it, and help you reevaluate your view just by living life, that's another story. I think the key is motivation for changing.
Who knows? I would imagine Al Gore would have had the opportunity to engage in conversations with the average American far more often as a private citizen than he had in the White House. Perhaps he met people who made him reevaluate his previous stance just by living their lives and he sat back one day and thought, "Huh . . . what I've thought is wrong."
Do we give him credit just for getting there, even if it is after the fact?
I did misread Gore's earlier comments. He explicitly used the term marriage both times, which makes a difference in my evaluation. His first statement seemed crafted to leave wiggle room as far as Civil Unions are concerned.
The second statement crosses the "marriage" terminology divide.
This is a more radical divergence than I allowed before.
However, Gore in 2000 would have had power to wade into the debate and push the Civil union compromise.
Now he does not have a dog in the fight. So his earlier statement is most likely tactical....much like Obama's current willingness to embrace the "post-partisan" ideal.
Post a Comment