STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

More Columnists

• Phil Lewis: Answers still sought in school dispute
• Jeff Lytle: Lee GOP panel members reject statewide loyalty pledge
• Ben Bova: Bold new frontiers — and markets — await us in space

Share and Enjoy [?]

If you are among those who regularly watch Sunday news/interview TV, you may have noticed, like me, the unremitting focus on candidate “flip-flopping.” Interviewers gleefully challenge candidates to “explain your flip-flopping” on this or that issue. Before a response can be made, a film clip from the TV archives (often from five, 10 or more years earlier) is run, “catching” the politician stating a view, which is then contrasted with another quite recent clip airing a view – suggesting a “damning” change in the past stance on the matter.

In fact, I was amused to see a respected political interviewer actually take out a pair of “flip-flops” from beneath his desk and “flip-flop” them vigorously as he asked the related question. How entertaining! The prop. I suppose, underscored for viewers that the candidate was then going to face an embarrassing “GOTCHA!” question on that subject and perhaps a few others. Such challenges to politicians, whether in interviews or so-called “debates”, have become much sought-after, “rating”–raising sound/sight bites. The media have trumpeted the opinion that politicians (especially candidates for the ’08 presidential election ) who have in any way or for whatever reason CHANGED THEIR MINDS on issues (Gasp!) are, at best weak, and, at worst manipulative — i.e. unprincipled and catering to voter polls, etc.

Relax, readers! This brief column will NOT dwell on presidential candidate inconsistencies. Instead, the alleged changing of their minds, which is so generally criticized, got me thinking about MY OWN “flip-flopping” in life!

Indeed, is it a character weakness or serious flaw for an INDIVIDUAL to change one’s mind over time about what one’s conscience dictates? Many, like me, have experienced “flip-flops” in attitudes about conduct and opinions that differ markedly from those we held in youth. As just one example among many, for some, religious values cultivated in youth or acquired later in life have been a thoughtful focus for successfully meeting life’s responsibilities. For others, similar tenets have been tested, found wanting and changed. Morality abides in many structures with many strictures: family, government, faiths, careers, etc. Experience, maturation, education, unforeseen events — all provide a “stage” for what I must say is, in my opinion, the inevitable “flip-flopping” experience within most lives.

Thoreau famously wrote “The unexamined life is not worth living.” My own list headed “When The Shoe Fit, I Flipped It!” would be lengthy! Yours? If it were it possible for any of us to view ourselves acting upon or expressing our personal values at one time or another in our past, then contrasted with what we have come to hold true about our activity and inner most deliberations today – how valid would it be for us to chide ourselves for any inconsistency or change?

Emerson in “Self-Reliance” suggested that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers...” The key word here, which is not to be lightly read, is “foolish.” Of course, all changes in our opinions or actions related to important matters must be carefully considered. If, after serious deliberation, change is called for and acted upon by conscience–must that be intrinsically viewed by others as a personal weakness? I think not. Perhaps even politicians deserve a pass on this sometime — (Oops! Do I go too far here?) Wait, I must be careful. It is not my intention to morph this “little” column into a sermon! My interest was aroused by my amusement at the use of the TV “flip-flop” prop. It prompted a concern: Is the media spin misguiding and zealously misinforming us when it unfairly and repeatedly defines most any change in position by politicians as clearly a weakness or serious flaw in their character or leadership? Thus, by implication, must we hold “Citizen Joe and Jane” to that same standard? I think not. Add “little media” to Ralph Waldo’s consistency quote above.

SIGNATURE QUOTE OF INTEREST: Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1 percent paid about 39 percent of all income taxes that year. The richest 5 percent paid a tad less than 60 percent, and the richest 10 percent paid 70 percent. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median — half of all households — paid a mere 3 percent of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers — those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 — paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.