Disclaimer: Mitt Romney is not my candidate, at least not yet. This post is not meant to introduce a discussion of Romney per se; it's meant to introduce a larger discussion.

What do you think of the charge of flip-flopping as a criticism for a politician? I find the area fascinating for several reasons. First, that charge seems to be greatly feared by candidates, greatly focused on by the media, and hardly considered at all by voters (I don't have the data at my fingertips, but polls back this up). Patrick Ruffini's blog today suggests that presidential candidates tend to govern by the flop and not the flip: "If you look at history, how candidates run -- regardless of what they believed earlier in their career -- is how they govern once they win." Which would make the public's shrugging at flip-flop charges actually quite rational.

Would I rather vote for someone who had spent his life enthusiastically supporting my positions? Sure. Do too many changes in position make me question a candidate's character? Sure. But at least part of what I want in a presidential candidate is one who will push for important policies I believe in. Shouldn't I be pragmatic about that?

As a postscript, it seems to me that even on big issues, every candidate is allowed one big shift. Reagan, Bush, and many Republicans were originally pro-choice; Gore (strongly), Clinton, and many Dems were originally pro-life. Isn't it the back-and-forth (rather than the single shift) that bothers most people?

Technorati Tags: Campaigns