Sunday, August 03, 2008
Good thing the Founders were flip-floppers
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Rodney K. Smith
Smith, of Buena Vista is the president of Southern Virginia University and is a constitutional scholar.
Those carefully watching the presidential race seem fixated on what many people consider to be a fatal character flaw: flip-flopping.
Sen. Barack Obama is the latest victim of this fixation. He is being criticized for changing his position on the war in Iraq to strengthen his political standing. He refers to this change in position as a refinement, arguing that he continues to emphasize the need to find a way to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq while acknowledging that as commander in chief he would take into count the lives of those implicated by any such withdrawal.
Gov. Mitt Romney, whose name has increasingly been floated as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate, continues to be criticized publicly on the ground that he is a flip-flopper. Romney's character is maligned primarily because he changed his position on abortion. He responds that his position changed, as a matter of conscience, when he had to determine whether he would sign a bill that would implicate the lives of the unborn.
Despite the negative thrust of arguments to the effect that a candidate has flip-flopped, there is virtue in recognizing one's own fallibility, in changing one's position based on new facts or as an act of conscience when a person is faced with a difficult choice on a complex issue. As an educator, I think of people who are willing to change their minds as being teachable. Our nation was built on just such changes of position by leaders who were teachable.
When we celebrate the Fourth of July we celebrate a great flip-flop on the part of our nation's founders. John Adams, together with many of our most prominent founders, was not supportive of a formal Declaration of Independence. The movement toward independence was slow and in many instances required painful changes in personally held positions.
James Madison, who is often referred to as the father of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, publicly opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution. Finally, however, in a tight race for Congress, he yielded to arguments and a strong public sentiment favoring a bill of rights and changed his position. He was criticized by his opponents for the seeming political nature of this change. Nevertheless, he was elected and became the sponsor and leader of the successful effort to add a bill of rights to our Constitution.
Both Obama and Romney have demonstrated they are willing to change their positions on significant issues. They have indicated that they are willing to change when facts change or when their consciences dictate a new course. Or, in the light least favorable to them, they may simply be willing to change when public sentiment seems to favor a change. Such changes, whether politically motivated, are defensible on two grounds.
First, candidates and political leaders ought to be teachable. They should be willing to change their positions when confronted with new information or a crisis of conscience.
Second, even if changes in position are made for purely political purposes, those changes are defensible. We want leaders of conscience, but we also want leaders who listen to our voices. Madison changed his position regarding the Bill of Rights based at least in part on public sentiment, and we all are deeply grateful that he did so. If a candidate finds that he cannot persuade the people of his view, then a change in position may be the best course. Our nation's strength is based as much in the goodness and wisdom of our people as it is on the views of our leaders.
At worst, flip-flopping reinforces our democratic form of government. We want leaders who are humble enough to be teachable and are willing to listen to the people. There is virtue in recognizing one can be wrong and, on occasion, in yielding to the wisdom of we the people.
