Great commentary; this line of attack is also one of my pet peeves. -promoted by desmoinesdem

Content warning: tone policing, poxes on both houses, general curmudgeonliness.

The 2016 Democratic primary reflects an internal conflict that I suspect is fairly common for aging liberals like myself. My idealistic heart thrills to hear genuinely liberal ideas debated seriously by a party that has often seemed leftist only by contrast to the headlong rightward scramble happening in the GOP. My pragmatic (and oft disappointed) brain is painfully aware that Congress will set itself on fire before it will cooperate with any president who isn’t the love child of Ronald Reagan and Genghis Khan. I’m happy that we’re having a vigorous primary contest – I caucused for O’Malley in a sadly futile attempt to keep the field as wide as possible – but I’m terrified by the notion that enough liberal voters from either camp could defect after a primary loss that they’ll end up throwing the general election to the Trump/Voldemort ticket.

While I love the spirited policy debate, I can’t help but cringe watching the primary campaigns and their supporters lobbing other election propaganda at each other. It’s obvious that the Republicans don’t need our help inventing creative ways to slander us and our ideals, but it does feel a little like we’re doing their job for them when we call each other names and question the character of our primary candidates. I’ve reluctantly resigned myself to ignore most of the character assassination (at least until we get past the primary and can get back to being appalled by conservatives full time), but there’s one soundbite accusation that I just can’t choke down no matter how much of my tongue I try to swallow: the accusation of “flip-flopping” on core liberal values.

The charge of flip-flopping takes for granted that changing your positions is somehow a Bad Thing. Revising your opinions is a sign of weakness. Forget new facts; ignore changing norms. For a leader to lead with leadership, he or she must always be as certain and self-assured as an Aaron Sorkin monologue.

This is an inherently conservative idea. It’s a rejection of change and growth that is antithetical to any reasonable definition of the word “progressive.” It’s also completely backwards from how we want people to act in literally any other part of our lives. We want doctors to stay up to date on medical research, and to adjust their practices accordingly. We want business people to change strategies to adapt to market conditions. We definitely want engineers to design new and better gadgets, with the latest technologies to show us pictures of other people’s cats. But for some reason we want our politicians to have the same exact opinions they had when we were in diapers?

Of course the candidates have internalized the message. They feel compelled to try and convince us that their positions have actually been consistent all along, often despite obvious evidence to the contrary. It’s feedback loop of self-refutation. We demand that they prove they’ve never changed their minds, so they have to try and sell us on the notion that they’ve always believed everything exactly as they do right now. And somehow it always seems more plausible when it’s coming from our favorite candidate.

The other charge that comes along with accusations of flip-flopping isn’t always as explicit, but is often more virulent. It’s the idea that an observed change of heart isn’t genuine. That they’re only doing it to get votes. Never mind that everything candidates do on the campaign trail (and most of what they do in office) is calculated to appeal to voters. Somehow adjusting positions to win over the electorate is cheating?

The thing is: so what? Who cares if they’ve gotten more liberal just to get votes, as long as they stay that way when they get into office? Do you really think that either of the Democratic candidates is going to wait until after inauguration day to raise a hand and say “Whoops, you know what, I think maybe I’m a concealed-carrying pro-life oil-fracking hippie puncher after all?”

I’m thrilled that our primary stage is allowing us to have a real debate about our priorities as liberals, and how those values should translate into policy. The candidates have some substantive disagreements, and there’s plenty of room for passionate and vehement advocacy. But when we slam Senator Sanders for his changing stance on gun control, or bash Secretary Clinton because she worked for Barry Goldwater, we’re playing into the narrative that says a leader should be proudly intransigent in the face of new information. We should be congratulating them for coming to their senses; instead, we’re helping the right to weaponize willful ignorance. If conservatives want to frame thoughtful deliberation as a toxic flaw, so be it. I’d really love it if we stopped letting them influence our internal deliberations in a way that is so opposed to our shared values.