Skip to Content

Flip-Flop

A “flip-flop” is a sudden reversal of opinion or policy by a politician, usually running for office.

The term is often used pejoratively to suggest that the politician is being insincere or opportunistic, and that their change of stance is motivated by political expediency rather than genuine conviction.

As Matthew Cooper pointed out:

Somewhere along the way, the charge of flip-flopping became one of the deadliest in politics—the shorthand for a lack of character.

By contrast, a politician who didn’t change his or her mind, or who vowed to be uninterested in polls, was considered to be of a higher caliber.

But there is a case for flip-flopping, or what might be called being human. After all, almost anyone with common sense has probably evolved on some position or another.

The term is often used in political campaigns to attack opponents and to highlight their perceived inconsistencies. Unlike a smear, accusations of flip-flopping are usually based on fact.

Politicians may be accused of flip-flopping on a range of issues, from social policy to foreign affairs.

In some cases, the charge of flip-flopping can be particularly damaging if it is perceived to undermine the politician’s credibility or trustworthiness.

Why politicians “Flip-Flop”

There are a number of reasons why politicians may change their position on an issue. Sometimes, politicians may change their stance in response to new information or changing circumstances.

For example, a politician may shift their position on climate change in response to new scientific evidence, or they may change their view on an international conflict based on developments in the region.

However, in many cases, politicians may change their position on an issue for strategic reasons.

For example, a politician may alter their stance in response to public opinion polls or to gain support from a particular constituency.

They may also change their position in response to pressure from party leaders, interest groups, or donors.

The accusation of flip-flopping can be particularly potent in the context of political campaigns.

Opponents may use a politician’s previous statements or voting record to attack their credibility and suggest that they cannot be trusted to stick to their principles.

This can be particularly damaging if the politician is seen as having changed their position for political gain rather than genuine conviction.

However, it is important to note that politicians are often criticized for flip-flopping even when their change of stance is based on new information or changing circumstances.

This can make it difficult for politicians to respond to accusations of flip-flopping, as they may be seen as lacking conviction even when their change of stance is based on rational and principled considerations.

NPR notes the term “has been a fixture in popular American parlance at least since the 1880s.

A New York Tribune writer in 1888 called out President Grover Cleveland for his ‘Fisheries flip-flop,’ presumably referring to Cleveland’s handling of the fishery treaty that governed waters shared by American and Canadian vessels and perhaps making wordplay on the way fish flop and flip on a boat deck.

Use of “Flip-Flop” in a sentence

  • The candidate was accused of flip-flopping on healthcare policy after she reversed her position on Medicare for All.
  • The senator’s flip-flop on immigration reform was seen by some as a cynical move to win over swing voters ahead of the election.
  • The president’s critics accused him of flip-flopping on foreign policy after he abruptly changed his position on a key strategic issue.