: Who do you think you are?…Do the flip-flop boogie, part 2…
I’m a few days late highlighting Nancy Gibbs’ article on CNN.com about the rhetoric of charging a political opponent with flop-flopping. I last visited this topic in January. Gibbs begins her article this way:
While we would like our Presidents to be consistently wise, it is the wisdom we are really after. But consistency and its cousin certainty still hold a sacred place in our politics. The charge that a candidate has flip-flopped on some position is not a political attack so much as a personal one. It is less about the issues being debated than about the instincts being revealed, about honor and honesty and nerve under fire. How tight the label sticks depends a lot on the impression voters have already formed, which means that a less well-known candidate can be vulnerable in ways a familiar one may not be.
I think Gibbs is correct that such charges often are personal attacks. Anyone who has spent any time at all in governance (notice I didn’t write “politics”) understands the roles of compromise and change in a democratic republic. Further, thoughtful people understand that minds can and do change based on, among other things, new information, new experiences, changing situations, effective arguments, and political expediency.
The charge of flip-flopping is often a personal attack–a fallacy. Here’s why (from my previous entry):
In the first chapter of the rhetoric textbook I use, the author writes something that most of my students find hard to accept at first: Opinions are community property. This is an ancient Greek concept. In our current noetic field, opinions are thought to belong to the individual.
Such thinking has some interesting effects on civic discourse. Because we think of opinions as personal, we can easily discount them as “just your opinion,” forgetting that opinions are socially formed and shared by many. Further, to attack an opinion seems to be an attack on the person, so we often think it is rude to do so–hence the admonition not to discuss religion and politics in polite company.
In politics, this notion encourages us to believe something truly odd: that politicians should not change their minds for reasons of political expediency.
Gibbs is also correct that American value certainty–a truly frightening national character trait, in my opinion. Don’t fall into that gapping trap. That assertion does not mean I think the opposite is better. In fact, refusing to see the world in simplistic dichotomies is exactly the state of mind that would serve Americans well in a dangerous and complicated world.
Rhetorically, charges of flip-flopping (from any political wing) are usually attempts to force an audience to make a choice in a dichotomy. Standard political schemes such as antithesis and ideologically-driven moral arguments help close the sale by encouraging citizens to suspend their capacity to think.
Do politicians sometimes change their minds for politically expedient reasons. Yes they do. For reasons I’ve already explained, I just don’t see this as much of a problem until an opponent attempts to simplify your thinking with a pathetic charge of flip-flopping.
This was my favorite line from the CNN article: “Kerry reverses himself more subtly” (than GWB). Well, all righteee, then, he’s got MY vote! What is the value of this type of article, really? Who is the audience? What are we to learn from an article about subtle flip-flopping vs. not subtle flip-flopping? Do you think this article helps Kerry, hurts Kerry or is neutral? Do you think it helps Bush, hurts Bush, or is neutral? Or do you think this article is strictly for “information”?
Well, never mind all this stuff, anyway, what about Springfield? Where are the pictures? You promised!
Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop.
Wonder if the Gov. Bill Owens will be flip-flopping too? After he announced Coors is running will he still endorse Schaffer? I just found it interesting in the first place that Coors will be running for the senate. The article (Coors to make run for Senate) is in the DenverPost on April 8th but you can see it online at:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~64~2069548,00.html
Hey @02:36PM – I used to live in Colorado back in the 70′s and then it was pretty liberal/Green. Is it conservative now? I used to work in one of the county Treasurer’s offices until I got fired when my boss found out I wasn’t a registered Democrat. Oh well. Then, as now, I shot my mouth off too much!
I find the article interesting primarily because it attemps to understand the rhetorical intention of the charge of flip-flopping.
Why should we think Gibbs’ opinions about rhetoric are more valid than Heywood Jablome? I see in her biography she has written articles on The Right to Die, Teen Sex and Values and The Columbine Tapes. Her degrees are in History, Politics and Philosophy. If she is an academic (I doubt it), where are her rhetoric credentials? I do believe she is attempting to tell us something here, but I doubt it is about rhetoric.
I never claimed her opinions are valid. In fact, I make no claims at all about Gibbs except to agree with her that some of these flip-flop charges are “attacks.” I find it interesting that she discusses this issue in terms of rhetoric–which she may not even understand she’s doing
Hee!Hee! Aren’t you smooth?
Kerry’s flip-flops chafe my feet
Dr. Andrew Kline’s Press-Politics Journal is an educational analysis of modern public rhetoric. Today, he responds to an article by Nancy Gibbs on CNN.com, which points out that charges of flip-flopping are often a personal attack rather than a politic…
Got nuthin’ to do with smooth
I use stuff from the internet as a jumping off point for things I want to say. Gibbs’ article simply provided an opportunity.
I’m curious. Which rhetoric textbook are you using?
Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students by Sharon Crowley.