Because the “flip-flop” attack just won't die...

If you don't understand why the “flip-flop” line of attack is always and everywhere thoroughly specious, you probably haven't been thinking, but I'll rehearse it one more time, and then toss the mic over to Jonathan Chait, a man who seems like he would be a great conversation partner except for the intensity with which he seethes over the various inanities of Republican populism. I don't even want to bring this up, because I hate the very phrase unless it's an onomatopoeic name for comfortable summer footwear, but I guess I'm blogging angry after seeing the word used somewhere on the internet in reference to Obama.

First, that a candidate changes his position on substantive issues during an election season reflects the political necessity of compromise. A candidate must find ways to represent different groups of people, and has a positive duty to adjust his positions accordingly.

Second, policy changes may come about as responses to new information. Asserting that one's own candidate is better than the other because the other has “flip-flopped” on some issue or another is asking me to believe that dogmatic inflexibility is a political virtue. If the reason for the change is a bad one, then we have something to talk about, but the fact of a change is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Third, as a matter of realism, we have to understand that a candidate who didn't deliberately move toward the center after the primaries would have no chance of being elected. Everyone does it. The most repugnant thing about Republican attempts to label Obama a waffler is that McCain has clearly changed his mind about any number of things, and he seems to get a pass.

All right, Jonathan Chait, take it away:

“And, so, whatever two or three issues the Democratic nominee has changed his emphasis on are inevitably blown up into a devastating character indictment. The Charles Krauthammers and Sean Hannitys of the world can be counted on to whip themselves into a moralistic frenzy against the feckless Democrat. And news reporters will stroke their chins and ponder, because the question is being asked: Just who is Obama (Kerry/Gore/Clinton), anyway? Yes, he may have a detailed platform on domestic and foreign policy, but do we really know anything about this man?

“If one needs any final proof of the ridiculousness of this quadrennial exercise, it is the fact that John McCain has embraced the flip-flopper attack. John McCain! I've said this before, I'll say it again: This is a man who, in his quest to make himself an acceptable GOP nominee, reversed his political philosophy (crusading anti-business progressive in the Teddy Roosevelt mode); his political orientation (frequently siding with, and nearly joining, Senate Democrats); and almost every particular undergirding it (taxes, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill, his own immigration bill, etc.). But if you actually think that flip-flopping is a sign of flawed character, and not just a handy partisan cudgel, then, sure, Obama might be slightly cynical, but McCain must be a dangerous sociopath.”

As my father would say, you test an idea by taking it to its logical conclusion. The “flip-flop” attack does not hold up. Please, please, let it go away sometime soon.