Far From the First Time, Part 2

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the traditional relationship between the President of the United States and the press.  What most Americans tend to believe are unique or worsening conditions, are more often the norm across American history.  The same can be said about the record of presidential candidates changing their minds once elected.  Presidential flip flops are the norm, not the exception. 

The term ‘flip flop’ is not universal in politics.  England uses "U-Turn", while Australia says "backflip", but the meaning is fairly constant.  A politician has performed a somersault and changed his position—usually while maintaining that both positions are somehow consistent.

The first use of the term seems to be when President Grover Cleveland changed his mind about a treaty between the United States and Great Britain concerning fishing in Canadian waters.  The Canadians had been confiscating the fishing boats of Americans who violated the treaty.  When Cleveland, cognizant that America was in the wrong, sought a peaceful settlement of the issue, newspaper cartoons appeared showing the president as a fish ‘flip-flopping” on the issue—and the term stuck.

Within two years, the New York Times had an article about a Tammany Hall politician running for the office of District Attorney just two years after unsuccessfully running against Tammany Hall.  From that point on, the term was used regularly in the press. 

Frequent presidential reverses existed long before the term did, however.  President Jefferson had denounced both Presidents Washington and Adams for their support of a National Bank, believing such a bank would encourage national debt.  However, Jefferson didn’t hesitate to borrow money to buy the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon.  With a down payment of only 20%, Jefferson had a London bank issue bonds to raise the remainder of the money.

As a presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln promised no radical acts against either the institution of slavery or actions against the South.  Lincoln’s speeches made it plain that he was against freeing the slaves, favoring instead a policy of “compensated emancipation” and forced recolonization of Africa.  Since the government could not possibly come up with the funds to buy the estimated four million slaves (nor the colossal number of ships necessary to transport them), you have to wonder how serious Lincoln was about this campaign promise.

Lincoln also promised not to use force for domestic purposes and to support states’ rights.  During his inaugural address in 1861, he vowed to not use federal troops within the states, saying that such an act would be “the gravest of crimes” against the Constitution.  This promise endured for slightly more than a month.

Wars feature prominently in failed presidential promises.  Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection in 1916 on the campaign slogan of “He Kept Us Out of War!”.  Ignoring that Wilson would in less than six months from the election ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Germany, the President had already sent an invading army into Mexico.

Ironically, in his speech to the joint houses of Congress, Wilson said that the world must be “made safe for democracy”.  Before the year was out, Wilson would help pass laws that saw the biggest roll back of civil liberties and freedoms in our nation’s history.   

In the election of 1932, while the nation was sliding into the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised the voters that he would not only cut government spending, but that he would balance the budget and eliminate extraneous and unnecessary federal agencies.  Roosevelt made so many contradictory promises during the campaign season that his opponent, President Hoover, likened FDR to a “chameleon on plaid”. 

Once elected, President Roosevelt not only tripled federal spending, he initiated over 100 new government offices, so many that even his supporters referred to them as the ‘alphabet agencies’.  (A surprising number of which still exist today.)

In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran against the military policies of President Eisenhower.  Touting that he would eliminate the ‘missile gap’—a phrase he coined— with Russia, he played upon the American fears of a nuclear holocaust during the darkest days of the Cold War.  What Nixon knew, but because of security restrictions could not divulge, was that the United States actually had a large technical lead against the Russians in missile technology.  (Today, with recently released documents, there is evidence that Kennedy knew the truth, having already been briefed on American missile superiority.)  Once president, Kennedy stopped talking about nuclear missiles and focused on a military buildup of conventional military hardware instead.

After losing to Kennedy, perhaps Richard Nixon learned from the experience.  After campaigning strenuously against the Vietnam War and President Johnson’s attempts to end the war through a negotiated peace.  As a candidate, Nixon said the only way America should end a war was "to win it."  Once he became president, Nixon greatly expanded the war while negotiating what he called “Peace with Honor”.  Today, polls show that more Americans associate the war with Nixon than Johnson. 

The presidency of Ronald Reagan is remembered as the epitome of conservative policy, but as the governor of California, Reagan raised taxes and helped pass liberal laws on abortion.  While running for the presidency, Reagan called for tax cuts, and while he did cut taxes in 1981, less remembered is that he raised them in 1982.

When George H. W. Bush stated strongly at the 1988 Republican National Convention, “Read My Lips—No New Taxes!”, he most likely doomed his reelection chances after raising them only two years later.  His quote became a political joke that eventually may be the only thing remembered about his presidency by most Americans.

In 2008, all of the candidates—Republican and Democrat—were against gay marriage.  In an amazingly short period of time, this became an issue that even conservative candidates would dodge, usually by saying that it was “an issue best left to states”—a phrase that is political shorthand for putting your hands over your ears and yelling “Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah!  Next question!”

Also in 2008, Barack Obama urged his opponent, John McCain, to accept federal campaign financing, an act that would guarantee both candidates $84 million dollars to fund their election attempts while imposing rigid financial restrictions on donors.  Obama quickly dropped this proposal when his campaign treasury began to receive larger than expected donations.  When Obama refused to accept federal funds, he became the first presidential candidate to refuse federal financing since 1976, when the campaign reform laws were passed.

We should accept that every politician will change position on issues after the election.  There is probably nothing wrong with this.  As John Maynard Keynes once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?”

Changing your mind as conditions change is okay.  What we, as voters, need to challenge is the politician who denies that he has changed his position, that his new stance on political issues is consistent with his old stance.

It is okay when voters believe a politician’s lies—this is business as usual.  It is not okay when the politicians start believing themselves.