You are invited to read the latest commentary from the Free Enterprise Foundation. It will make you think!

Flip-Flop

With tongue well in cheek I wrote to a nationally prominent newscaster friend of mine to ask innocently why John McCain’s change of position on offshore drilling was a “flip-flop” and none of Senator Obama’s sudden changes of positions, multiple though they be, receive that sobriquet from the national media. His too serious response: “The reason would seem to be that the term "flip-flop" means, as Webster’s' online dictionary puts it, ‘a sudden reversal (as of policy or strategy.’ That indicates it would apply whether the switch was occasioned by changed conditions or not. I agree, however, that the term has a pejorative connotation and should be used with care.”

His answer, though correct, disappointed me because my question did not elicit the strong “fair and balanced” response I was hoping for. What I was looking for was a response indicating he would be diligent in making the difference clear between the evolution of a change in position to meet substantially changed circumstances, from those changes by a candidate within a relatively short period from positions previously stated to make the candidate appear noble and quickly abandoned to meet a personal advantage. Now that is a “flip-flop!” The former situation is of an entirely different stripe.

Public policy positions are developed within a factual context that is elastic and must be considered for its effectiveness during the period of time that the underlying facts do not substantially shift. Both actions tell us important truths about the candidates but polar opposites in their import. Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay on self reliance notes that a great man does not have to think consistently the same every day. “Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” is how he put it; however sudden shifts can be indicative of a candidate’s inner self.

In the two examples we are considering, John McCain is changing his position from that time in 2000 when OPEC had announced a banded range of $21-28 for a barrel of crude, with no imminent threats of disruption of supply and before the Second Iraq War was a thought in most anybody’s mind. I would have preferred, given my fundamental concern with the national security implications of dependence on foreign suppliers for a critical raw product that he had seen the necessity to move, even in 2000 to a replacement strategy and said so. It is however a totally different situation to consider Senator McCain’s position with our 20/20 hindsight in 2008. Its political advisability in 2000 must be viewed within the context of that prior national security situation. So viewed, it is reasonable, even compelling, for him to change his position today faced with crude near or above $150 a barrel and the Middle East near chaos.

On the other hand, Senator Obama’s flip, despite the attempt to fold it into an alleged fear of being outspent by conservative Section 527 organizations is particularly troubling because of the prominently moral basis he gave for adopting the position in the first place. The illusory basis of his paper thin excuse for the shift is put to the lie by the 4 to 1 funding advantage that liberal Section 527 organizations currently enjoy over their conservative counterparts.

My conservative philosophy prefers candor and transparency in the adoption of policy wherever national security doesn’t make that impossible. I cringe at the crassness of Obama’s flip on what is now just the latest of a daily parade of changed positions. Increasingly he is looking more like the typical power hungry; say whatever it takes politician willing to do anything to win. If the appearance is the reality, it raise layers of questions as to what kind of president he would be and makes it even harder to plum his meager public record to see the direction of an Obama presidency.

David Brooks in The New York Times has recently raised the possibility that Obama is not the naïf some conservatives wishfully project him to be but is instead the most shrewd and adept politician since FDR with a full arsenal of mental and communication skills to carry his essentially big government policies to victory in November. With a sardonic smile, William Kristol on Fox News Sunday, seconds that opinion with his prediction that Obama will return from Iraq after meeting with General Patraeus with a completely different take on the war and our withdrawal from the region.

What to make of all this? Some of Obama’s more liberal backers are starting to display nervous ticks as he races for the center, while some conservatives who won’t vote for him anyway are, nevertheless, less inclined to think that Armageddon will befall us if he becomes President. In a strange way his venal political personae is comforting. If senator McCain does not get geared up and aggressively promote a positive alternative to Obama’s activism that comfort may be all they end up with. I suspect it will be warm porridge cold in November.

While calling himself the underdog, Senator McCain is on his victory lap visiting Iraq, Latin America and a few of the darkest spots in America’s hinterland. His manner is of the already elected, if not anointed. There is lots of bonhomie and humor but little in answers to our most vexing national problems coming from his campaign. It is great to suggest a temporary lifting of our federal gas tax to give a lift to hard pressed wallets, but in the absence of a vision for how we work our way our of our energy miasma, it is of small comfort and presents the candidate as being without a grand vision for his leadership. The country will buy in to the candidate that sets out a comprehensive program they can believe in. The country seeks a way forward. Temporary political bromides won’t do it. Neither candidate has done it so far, but in the absence of a whiz bang approach by McCain; Obama wins on sheer activity and vigor.

While McCain has recently moved the chairs about the reeling deck of his non campaign, the nation is likely to select Obama’s flawed but comprehensive vision over McCain’s “non vision” business as usual approach. I will vote for McCain in any case. The prospect of a President Obama picking our judiciary, the many empty slots at The SEC and The Federal Reserve Board, determining our foreign policy in the face of an aggressive Wahabi inspired jihad aimed at our basic values, and Obama’s all roads lead to Washington inspired domestic policy will keep me on the reservation. It cannot be comforting, however, for Republicans that when I do the analysis, my vote will be against Obama rather than for McCain. It is hardly a good omen for the nation I love.

Copyright © 2008 by Robert E. Freer, Jr. All rights reserved

About the author: Robert E. Freer, Jr., is president of the Free Enterprise Foundation, (www.FreeEnterpriseFoundation.org). He is a professor at The Citadel and was selected in 2005 to be their first John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence. A regular contributor to the Mercury, Prof. Freer may be reached at Robert.freer@citadel.edu. Copies of his earlier columns may be found at www.FreeEnterpriseFoundation.org. A new book from Professor Freer, Citadel Values, containing the wisdom of some of his most beloved columns, is available on Amazon.com, through the Foundation’s website and at The Citadel Gift Shop.

If you’d like to contribute an article to this collection please e-mail it for review .