I'm a flip-flopper.
Sometimes I put on an outfit in the morning but then read about forecasted rain in the paper and change. Or I'll be set to order a fat potato with the works for dinner only to discover that the potato is classified as a low-carb potato, so I order another item that doesn't sound so genetically disturbing to eat.
Granted, these are incredibly minor occasions in a typical day that classify me as a flip-flopper. But then again, I'm not running for president of the United States.
Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, is a flip-flopper. He fought in the Vietnam War before he protested against the war. He voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against the war. And so on.
Kerry is a classic example of a flip-flopper, and the Bush campaign relies on these incidents to insist that a flip-flopper can never successfully lead a nation.
The Bush administration would never be guilty of committing such a passive act. In an interview with Fox News released Sunday, Bush insisted that he had no regrets from his "Mission Accomplished" speech he gave in May 2003. In this speech, Bush declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" and that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
When the speech was given, fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Today, that figure exceeds 1,000. According to the Pentagon, more than 7,000 Americans have been wounded in action. Yet when Fox News questioned the president on whether he would still wear a flight suit and declare the major operations in Iraq over, Bush responded, "Absolutely."
Bush supporters tout his stubborn stance on the war as a clear and unyielding position -- unlike his adversary, who goes back and forth on his positions. While a flip-flopper is unacceptable as a president, Americans are supposed to believe that a stubborn deceiver is acceptable.
What's so bad about a flip-flopper anyway? In light of new facts, great leaders are expected to change prospective positions -- that's what makes them great leaders. Was the Supreme Court decision to overturn Plessey v. Ferguson in 1954, to demand school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education, a flip-flop?
Or how about when the late President Ronald Reagan softened his stance against the Soviet Union under their new leader Mikhail Gorbachev? In this case, Reagan was credited with avoiding a nuclear showdown with the Soviets, and this "flip-flop" in his stance was considered diplomacy.
The study of history allows for such tepidity. As present significant events mirror those of the past, an informed leader will consider the past an indication of how the future will turn out. Had the United States studied Vietnamese history before entering the Vietnam War, we might have realized just how strongly the Vietnamese value nationalism.
Had we flip-flopped in our decision to invade Vietnam, the 50,000 lives lost in the war may have been prevented. Many of us (myself included), angered by the tragedy of Sept. 11, jumped at the idea of going to war to thwart those bastard terrorists.
Three years later, as the "liberation" of Iraq has transformed into the "invasion" of Iraq, imminent threat has yet to be revealed and war morale (not to be confused with troop support) has certainly dwindled.
In studying history, we might compare Iraq to Vietnam -- even to the former state of Yugoslavia -- as a civil war currently threatens to break up Iraq over religious conflict. So are we Americans, who began to follow the news more closely in these times, who analyze the facts, who compare this war to historical wars, flip-floppers as well?
Flip-floppers we may be, but then again we flip-floppers might just decide the upcoming election.
Lily Yan is a political science and journalism junior. Reach her at Lily7174@msn.com.
