The American political arena is full of questions post election of Donald Trump. What will Trump’s second term look like? How will American foreign policy shift? How could pollsters be so wrong – can we trust them anymore? Why did the Democrats, and Kamala Harris, come up short?
A majority of the recent political buzz pertains to the last question: how did the Democrats fail so miserably? There is a lot of finger pointing going on, in attempts to explain the Democrats’ failure. Was it the inability to capture the Latino male vote, or the lack of open primaries, or even the lack of time Kamala had to prepare and properly campaign? Democratic voters may have been disillusioned by the dramatic shift in positions – also known as flip-flopping – that the party took this election cycle. Harris, keen to win over battleground states, walked back on several issues such as fracking and immigration in hopes of gaining support from moderate Republicans. This may have undermined her support among her base while not being sufficiently persuasive to swing voters. But critiques of flip-flopping are ubiquitous across the political spectrum. During Harris’ campaign, Trump lambasted her indecisiveness, which some might view as hypocritical considering Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance also changed their positions on particular issues as well.
The left’s frustration (many young democrats feel their opinions were disregarded by the Harris campaign) with some of Kamala’s new policies is understandable. A shift towards matching any “flip-flopping” with hostility, though, is not positive for America or its democracy.
Things have not always been this way, though. In a 2016 journal article titled, “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq” by Sarah E. Croco, a professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, we gain crucial insights into why some “flips” are reacted to so negatively. Essentially, voters succumb to confirmation bias when deciding to support a flip or not. Croco states, “Citizens are rarely put off by a leader’s change of heart provided the politician’s switch moves him closer to their preferred policy” (253). In our case, if Kamala started with positions leaning center-right, and shifted her stances to be left-leaning, she would have seen an increase in support from Democrats, and they would therefore disregard her flip-flopping.
Further, Croco claims that in the 2004 presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry, and the 2012 election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, there were high levels of flip-flopping among the candidates (referencing Kerry and Romney), but this had little effect on election day. In Kerry’s case, although he flip-flopped his position on US involvement in the War in Iraq, anti-war voters still would have preferred him to Bush (253). Additionally, Kerry only flip-flopped on one issue. Serial flip-floppers may fare even worse, as they are perceived as less credible when they flip on multiple positions. Further, serial flippers are even more prone to criticism than a politician who flips on just one issue (Croco, 255). In Kamala’s case, this “serial flip-flopping” may have been key to her demise.
Croco’s article points out the stigma against flip-flopping, but does not provide any way to combat it. The DCI provides the foundation for combating anti-flip-flopping mindsets from the ground up. Through D Teams or forum events, the DCI makes a space for respectful, open minded conversation across partisan lines. One purpose of these discussions is for people to broaden their perspective on a certain issue, like DEI or campus protests (both of which were D Team topics for this semester), and maybe even change their opinions on an issue as a result of hearing another perspective.
Should we not extend this sentiment to politicians? Politically-motivated serial flip-floppers may receive less sympathy from the public eye, but thoughtful single issue flippers should certainly be given more leeway. Just like us, they too can change their mind. The onus is on we the people, and our political leaders, to not propagate indiscriminate anti-flipping rhetoric, as anyone can – and should be allowed to – change their mind.
Citations
Croco, Sarah. 2016. “The Flipside of Flip-Flopping: Leader Inconsistency, Citizen Preferences, and the War in Iraq.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12 (3).
