Voters are a finicky bunch. They like their politicians to be
smart, but not too intellectual. Bill Clinton was just right, Adlai
Stevenson was not. They like their politicians to be shrewd but not
cunning. Johnson was fine, Nixon was not. They like their
politicians to be flexible pragmatists, but not wishy-washy. FDR
was just right, John Kerry was not.
It is that balance between flexibility and cravenness which
voters frequently struggle with, perhaps more acutely this election
because of the experience of the current president and the last
failed Democratic candidate. George Bush is either resolute or
pigheadedly stubborn, depending on your viewpoint. Like the
characters in Arsenic and Old Lace who could hardly
conceal the crazy aunt in the basement uncomfortably popping up
whenever guests arrived, he insisted for months that all was going
smoothly in Iraq when chaos reigned. For too long, he personified
to many a stubborn resistance to change a game plan that was
failing. John Kerry was the polar opposite. Ridiculed for “voting
for the $87 billion before he was against it,” and bearing a meager
legislative record, he seemed without firm convictions and
unwilling to project or persevere with ideas. With these examples
fresh in voters’ minds, it seems that in this election more than
others voters’ antennae will be tuned to the “flexibility vs.
resoluteness” debate.
There is plenty of position changing going on this political
season. Hillary is scooting left, and fast, on the Iraq War. John
McCain has discovered the benefits of tax cuts. Mitt Romney’s
position changes have given observers political whiplash but have
also made him some new conservative friends. So what’s wrong with
changing your mind a few times? What is a little evolution between
friends? It matters and matters greatly to voters in some but not
all cases.
First, it matters most obviously to those who embrace either the
position you had or the position you now have. Of course “one
issue” voters who hold firmly to the position the candidate has now
discarded may abandon the candidate who no longer toes the line.
Besides these, voters on both sides of the changed issue now either
feel jilted or suspicious. Those who favored the position now left
behind feel like the spouse who has cooked the dinner only to find
out the mate no longer likes the previously favored dish. “When did
you stop liking pot roast and why did I waste my time?” they
hurtfully ask. Those who are pleased the candidate has “come
around” to their view nevertheless fret about how long it will be
before they too are cast aside.
Second, voters tolerate changes on fact-based, empirical issues
much more readily than issues of “conscience.” Voters understand
that when facts change, positions can change. George Bush was
against nation building but voters accepted that we might need to
build a nation or two if the old ones were going to help terrorists
get on planes to kill us. Many governors get away with raising
taxes or cutting spending after “discovering” the state’s budgetary
situation was much worse than previously known. Many a Democrat
trying to escape the wrath of the party base for his Iraq vote now
says he was misled and lacked the facts he now has. But barring a
religious epiphany, voters find it harder to accept changes on
non-empirically based issues. Change on deeply held moral beliefs,
especially more than one of them, leaves the voters with the
impression of someone fickle, too eager to please and without a
moral rudder that will guide them.
Third, it matters greatly how and when a candidate changes his
position or affiliation. Ronald Reagan explained that the
Democratic Party “left him” when it failed to aggressively
challenge the Soviet Union. His transformation over a significant
period of time, distinct from any campaign cycle was perceived as
genuine and heartfelt. That is a far cry from quickly adopting or
dropping positions just in time for the next primary season. In
1988, Bush 41 barely escaped his retraction of the “voodoo
economics” line which he had voiced only eight years earlier.
Fourth, changes on positions aimed at a key demographic group or
geographic constituency immediately raise suspicions. How many
candidates have changed their position on ethanol just in time for
the Iowa caucus? It usually doesn’t fly with highly informed caucus
goers. Democrats from conservative states like Al Gore or Dick
Gephardt who were formerly pro-life face scorn within and outside
the party when they need to mend fences with pro-choice voters in
time to run for the presidency.
After George Bush voters may crave less ideology and more
flexibility from their candidates. But I suspect that savvy voters
who watched with either glee or horror as John Kerry was destroyed
for perceived flip-flopping on just one (albeit major) issue will
be wary of choosing a candidate who does not have a solid
explanation for his changes of heart. You can only evolve so
much.
