Reactions to story from Guardian

• 

  Courage of the flip-flop

  http://julianbaggini.blogspot.com/2008/07/courage-of-flip-fl...
  150 days ago in Julian Baggini · Authority: 17

  "The trouble with most people is not that they lack the courage to stick to their guns, but they don't have the greater bravery to change course. Consistency is a good thing, but not when it is understood as simply refusing to change your mind. Indeed, one of the best reasons for changing your mind is precisely to become more consistent."Article in today's Guardian.
• 

  On Flip-Flopping

  http://malchadwick.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/on-flip-flopping...
  148 days ago in Malachi Chadwick · Authority: 1

  Julian Baggini posted an interesting article on Comment is Free recently, in which he discusses the idea of ‘flip-flopping‘ - the term used to describe the sudden reversal by a politician of a previously held view or policy position, and made famous during the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Baggini makes the unobjectionable but often overlooked point that making a political u-turn is actually more difficult, and usually more laudable than sticking dogmatically to one’s views in the face of conflicting evidence: Where are the conviction politicians of today, people ask. I’ll tell you: in Zimbabwe, in Tehran, and in the White House. [...] courage of conviction is too often admired even when the convictions are hopelessly wrong. [...] The trouble with most people is not that they lack the courage to stick to their guns, but they don’t have the greater bravery to change course. Consistency is a good thing, but not when it is understood as simply refusing to change your mind. Indeed, one of the best reasons for changing your mind is precisely to become more consistent. In many ways, I’m with him on this. It’s pretty clear that unwavering commitment to a particular idea or policy prescription is unwise, and often actually dangerous. If Mao Zedong had ‘flip-flopped’ on Lysenko’s theory of environmentally acquired inheritance, for example, the needless starvation of millions during the ‘Great Leap Forward’ could have been averted. I also think that the ‘flip-flop’ as a political concept needs to be examined more critically. It has become a ‘frame’ for presenting a particular category of political behaviour - a bundle of simplistic negative connotations that can be attached to a person or action, ensuring that it will be interpreted negatively. These frames are common in American politics especially (see also: Michelle Obama as an ‘angry black woman‘), and generally serve only to elide complexity and prevent issues from being judged on a case-by-basis. Like all stereotypes and simplifications the ‘flip-flopper’ frame contains a grain of truth, and Baggini touches on this in describing the three respects in which consistency is important in politics: First, we need to know what values are guiding their decisions; no matter how good it is to reassess one’s values, we need to rely on those we elect to adhere to the ethos on which they were elected. Second, elections only make sense if people follow the bulk of the policies they were elected to implement, not just a general agenda. Third, changes of mind that occur because politicians didn’t think clearly the first time do not inspire confidence. Brown’s U-turn on the 10p tax was a classic example of a change of mind that, though welcome, betrayed poor judgment in the first place. All of these are valid points, and in fact I’m in broad agreement with the bulk of this article. However, I think Baggini misses a crucial dimension of the issue, and his analysis suffers as a result. I’m talking about the sincerity, or lack of it, that underlies the u-turn. Clearly when it comes to a change of position, motives matter. If a politician says one thing to AIPAC, and then something completely contradictory to ISNA the following week, we would be naive to think that evidence and rationality accounted for any disparity between the two statements. Such cynical pandering certainly couldn’t be called courageous, other than, perhaps, in its audacity. If this post is about anything (and I’m beginning to wonder), it’s a warning as to the danger of allowing the reductive tendencies of media representation to obscure the invariably complex reality of a given political situation. I’m pretty sure we deserve better than that.
• 

  Flip-Flopping

  http://raffaellopantucci.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/flip-flopp...
  148 days ago in Raffaello Pantucci's Writings · Authority: 1

  My latest in the NS on the US elections. In retrospect, the point could have been made a little harder, but oh well. Still, i do find this almost perverse fixation on the flipflop obnoxious, as naturally people will change their views when they hear new ideas. Irritatingly, i saw after i had written this, that Julian Baggini had done something similar in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/05/1). Back to terrorism next, tho am waiting for it to be published before i put it here. http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/07/flip-flop-vote-usa-obama Flip-flopping Raffaello Pantucci Published 07 July 2008 The reality is that the fixation on the “flip flop” is really little more than a catchy phrase that essentially captures what politician’s have been doing for years   No sooner than Hillary conceded to Obama then the US presidential campaign got underway in earnest and with it came the usual rampant speculation. Who might get top jobs in the next administration, dark whispers alluding to salacious details in each candidate’s alleged past; and, most entertainingly of all, the art of calling the “flip flop” on your opponent. The “flip flop” is what people in Britain might call a change of heart or U-turn on a previously held position. In the current race, this translates recently into Barack Obama’s decision to forgo public financing in his campaign (in recognition of the immense amount of money he has managed to raise from small individual donors), or John McCain’s turn-around from being a Senator vigorously against off-shore drilling and tax cuts – to deciding that both are in fact probably good solutions to current issues (conveniently both are issues that appeal to a Republican base that remains tepid towards him). There have been even more egregious shifts from both campaigns as we have gone along: John McCain went from calling the Christian right “agents of intolerance” to recognising that if he wants to win, he is also going to have to bring this crucial conservative constituency on-side. A problem when one considers that in January 2007, James Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family - a leading Christian group - stated that “I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances, I pray that we won’t get stuck with him” (while he has since reached out to McCain, he has yet to give him the endorsement). Barack Obama on the other hand was embarrassed when his heartfelt protectionist campaign rhetoric clashed with what his key economic adviser was running around telling concerned Canadians that “much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political manoeuvring than policy.” Politics as normal one might cynically say. Well, yes, but last time the “flip flop” got thrown around properly in an American campaign was with John Kerry, when his “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it” (referring to a vote to allow a supplemental bill to get funding for troops in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan), became the “gift that kept giving” as Karl Rove put it. Endless pro-Bush ads played on constant repeat highlighting what by Kerry’s own admission was “one of those inarticulate moments,” and Republican rallies became slipper waving affairs with speakers leading the crowds in “flip flop” themed chants. And when people went to the polls, the charge stuck, with Kerry losing and polls showing that 65 per cent saw him as a “flip flopper,” while Bush led the faithful with merely 36 per cent doubting him. This may not have been the only reason for John Kerry’s defeat, but it was one of the defining features of the campaign – and neither the Macattack nor Obaminator want to be tarred with this losing brush (though they are perfectly happy for surrogates to throw it around liberally against the other). This concern may actually be misplaced, as it is not totally clear that the public either care or trust one more than the other. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll reported that “61 per cent of voters polled said McCain has changed his mind for political reasons” and “59 per cent of those polled said Obama also shifts positions with the political winds”. The American public apparently holds both men with equal disdain when it comes to believing their promises. The reality is that the fixation on the “flip flop” is really little more than a catchy phrase that essentially captures what politician’s have been doing for years. This is not to justify the sometimes openly mendacious things that they say, but merely another sort of reflection of the endless media coverage politicians are subjected to. Any wavering away from message, contradiction with a previous statement, or an “inarticulate moment” will be likely captured on video, broadcast around the world, and over-analysed ad nauseam. This is true not only of “flip flops” but also open bigotry (witness Republican Senator George Allen’s “macaca” comment that managed to lose him one of the US’s most Republican states) and other errata (like former President Bill Clinton on the stump for his wife). “Events, dear boy, events,” was how Harold Macmillan described things that steer governments off course – and this is equally applicable to any political campaign and any policy stand. Given we live in a world where time moves on, and things happen, why are we surprised when a politician’s stand might slightly alter or correct itself when some new information comes to light or something happens? On the basis of the weight given to the “flip flop” it would appear we need either politicians with an oracular degree of prescience – or we need ones who are so bull-headed that even in the face of overwhelming facts, they stick to their guns and let history be their judges. That or we need to find a way of getting the world to stop turning until the election ride is over.    
• 

  QotD

  http://oaksong.livejournal.com/663218.html
  150 days ago in Oaksong's Nemeton · Authority: 5

  "Courage of conviction is too often admired even when the convictions are hopelessly wrong." --Julian Baggini, in "Courage of the Flip-Flop," an excellent short article which you should go read.
• 

  The value of the flip flop

  http://deusexmacc.blogspot.com/2008/07/value-of-flip-flop.ht...
  150 days ago in Deus Ex Macchiato · Authority: 5

  What do you call a Frenchman in sandals? Phillipe Phillop. With that out of the way, we can get to the point. Long or Short Capital, a good financial satire site, has an occasional series of Quotes Entirely Relevant to Investing. Well here's one, an entirely serious one, from an excellent article by Julian Baggini:The trouble with most people is not that they lack the courage to stick to their guns, but they don't have the greater bravery to change course. Consistency is a good thing, but not when it is understood as simply refusing to change your mind...To worry more about whether you've stuck with your views than about how they stack up now is to value loyalty to ideas more than fidelity to the truth.Great traders have great ideas. But more than that, when they have an idea that does not work out, they take the trade off. They don't invest too much in any particular idea -- because they know that if it doesn't work out, they need to be able to recognise that, learn the lesson and move on.
• 

  Courage of the flip-flop

  http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2008/07/courage-of-flip-flop....
  151 days ago in BHA Science Group · Authority: 17

  Julian Baggini is a BHA Distinguished Supporter. Here he advocates that your view on a topic - from the beginning - should be based on evidence. Changing your view - when the evidence is forthcoming, should be supported. It's easy to be a conviction politician. Real bravery consists of changing tack according to the evidence All comments (5) Julian Baggini The Guardian, Saturday July 5, 2008Article history For months all the US presidential hopefuls have been accusing their rivals of flip-flopping. Politicians want to be like Margaret Thatcher, whose insistence that "the lady's not for turning" was a turning point in her popularity. Where are the conviction politicians of today, people ask. I'll tell you: in Zimbabwe, in Tehran, and in the White House. It was Walter, in The Big Lebowski, who said: "Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, Dude, but at least it was an ideology"; courage of conviction is too often admired even when the convictions are hopelessly wrong. The trouble with most people is not that they lack the courage to stick to their guns, but they don't have the greater bravery to change course. Consistency is a good thing, but not when it is understood as simply refusing to change your mind. Indeed, one of the best reasons for changing your mind is precisely to become more consistent. If you backed biofuels for environmental reasons, then it would be consistent with your beliefs to drop that support if you became convinced that biofuels weren't that green after all. To worry more about whether you've stuck with your views than about how they stack up now is to value loyalty to ideas more than fidelity to the truth. Consistency is much more important at a time than over time. If I believe global warming is a man-made danger but don't support measures to counter it, I am being inconsistent. However, if 10 years ago I doubted global warming, but now favour lowering CO2 emissions, I'm guilty of nothing more than changing my mind as evidence emerges. In politics this is critical, because ideas are tested against evidence all the time. Twenty years ago you had to decide if you were for public-private partnerships on the basis of ideology or what might work. Now we have countless examples all over the world, and an evidence-based view will show that some work and others don't. Every new policy implemented is an experiment, and not to change your opinion on the basis of the result is absurd. If your opinion on the congestion charge, academy schools or the Scottish parliament hasn't changed at least a little in the light of what has happened, either you are unusually clairvoyant - or your opinion isn't worth much. Consistency is important in politicians in three respects. First, we need to know what values are guiding their decisions; no matter how good it is to reassess one's values, we need to rely on those we elect to adhere to the ethos on which they were elected. Second, elections only make sense if people follow the bulk of the policies they were elected to implement, not just a general agenda. Third, changes of mind that occur because politicians didn't think clearly the first time do not inspire confidence. Brown's U-turn on the 10p tax was a classic example of a change of mind that, though welcome, betrayed poor judgment in the first place. But most flip-flops do not break these cardinal rules. There was no reason to pursue nuclear power until rising energy prices and the imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions changed the calculation. The appropriate response to Mugabe has surely changed since his sham re-election. And however misguided 42-day detention without trial, the idea that our thinking should not have changed post-9/11 is preposterous. We don't change our minds enough because we find the comfort of knowing what we think easier than following arguments wherever they lead, as Socrates advised. That's why the one belief I have consistently upheld is that not consistently upholding beliefs is a very good thing - which is another example of perfectly justified inconsistency. · Julian Baggini is the editor of the Philosophers' Magazine Julianbaggini.com

Advertise on Technorati