First of all let me apologise for not keeping up to date. It’s been a hectic month for me.
Now to business. Political Backflipping receives an awful lot of condemnation from the media. In some cases I can understand why, but not when it serves no purpose. And in certain cases, the opposition party tends to jump on it and use it to deflect public discussion on more pressing matters.
I’ve noticed this just recently with the alienation of Peter Garrett’s sentiments towards US bases in Australia. Whilst I have little opinion towards the issue itself, I do see however how his change of heart has sparked the media frenzy.
Now I don’t know if his change of heart is right or wrong, or whether it was subjection the ALP party politics or not, the thing that this story sparks to me is how the media loves to come down hard on political backflipping. It also shows me how personal criticisms often deflect policy debate. And this happens on both sides of politics and at all levels….
February 17, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I really feel for Peter Garrett, on one hand joining the ALP he has political influence, but on the other he is subject to the party line. It really does seem unfair.
February 18, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Every time I hear the word ‘backflip’, I just tune out. It’s just some media hack trying to generate a story. Why can’t they focus on the merits of actual policies, rather than politicians’ views on them?
What I find ironic, is that if a politician changes his view to be in line with the beliefs of a particular commentator, that commentator will commend the politician for ‘listening to reason’ or ‘listening to the people’. But if the commentator doesn’t like the new view, it’s a ‘backflip’.
February 19, 2007 at 7:12 am
There’s a difference between an evolution of principles and a backflip or flip flop.
One comes from careful study of the data and analysis of one’s position, and genuine learning is involved. In this case the person will most likely acknowledge they have actually changed their mind. This, I believe, is sincere and a genuine evolution or change of mind. I think everyone should be allowed to do this, or we’re suggesting that once spoken an opinion means everything and we know it all!
The other comes from pandering to opinion polls or factions within a party and toeing the party line. I personally perceive Garrett to be gui;ty of this, but it was always going to be his great challenge in joining the Labor party.
February 19, 2007 at 8:58 am
I agree Justin. Unfortunately the media don’t seem to attempt to make the distinction.
I’m also personally inclined to think that Peter Garrett has changed his mind in the name of political pragmatism. But I just don’t think it’s a big deal in this case. US bases in Australia? It’s hardly a major issue.
February 19, 2007 at 9:27 am
Let’s make no mistake – current coalition rarely changes it mind based on sound policy grounds but ‘newspoll’ sure helps!
February 19, 2007 at 9:29 am
But I do agree with the point that it gets weary hearing on the tv or radio or newspaper every time a politician changes their mind it’s a “backflip”. These politicians have access to lots of info (to the point of info overload) and constantly being lobbied by various gruops.
Goodness knows, if everytime I changed my mind on an issue after closer examination of facts, I would be a diving champion with the amount of “backflips!”
February 19, 2007 at 10:57 am
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/02/18/1171733612788.html?from=top5 interesting read from this mornings Sydney Mornign Herald
February 19, 2007 at 11:06 am
Mitt Romney made a comment some weeks ago regarding this idea. He suggested that in political life it’s almost suicide to change your mind because you get labelled a flip flopper. However, he said in private enterprise, if you can’t be open to the possibility of changing your mind with new data, it’s almost suicide. How ironic.