The liberal art of flip-flopping

John Kerry personifies the classic liberal mindset. Throughout his bid for the presidency in 2004, he seemed unable to make a decision on anything. He became famous for his flip-flops, and it seemed as though he'd become an embarrassment to his party. A comedian noted, upon seeing a picture of Kerry windsurfing, that even his sports depended on which way the wind blew.

And yet, in spite of his tendency to take both sides of any issue (I would like to have seen a debate featuring John Kerry vs. John Kerry), he managed to garner 48 percent of the popular vote in the election. Imagine – 48 percent of Americans (well, mostly Americans, if you count dead people and illegal aliens) voted for a guy who campaigned on opposing stances on every issue! And, if you look at Kerry now, if anything, he is even more popular among liberals. He continues to show the same "nuance" that he did during the campaign: he cannot take a stand on any issue. If he does, he reverses it in the very next speech.

TRENDING: End-time plague? River in Israel turns blood red

Hillary is the same. She's for the war; she's against the war. The examples are numerous and not really worth repeating.

Nearly all liberals, when their records are examined closely, are the same. Impossibility to take a stand is a symptom of the disease of liberalism. Perhaps this is what Bob Dylan meant when he penned "Blowin' in the Wind."

Most pundits cite the litany of flip-flops as proof that liberals are as steady as the shifting sands, and with each new example, are certain that this one will surely bury whatever liberal uttered it.

And yet, liberals are still very much in business.

How is this possible? How could any reasonable voter support a candidate who campaigns on both sides of an issue? A candidate who, one day says one thing and the next day says the exact opposite? A candidate who cannot make up his mind on where he stands on minor issues like the war, abortion, border security, the Constitution, etc.?

The key that unlocks this room of confusion can be found not in voters, but rather in liberal politicians. You see, the liberals have figured out that the people who support them do not remember anything and are willing to believe anything. A liberal politician can say anything he wants to say, based on whatever polls are high in any given cycle, and his voters will believe him – faithfully, unquestioningly and unconditionally. If opinion changes and that same politician changes his support accordingly, he's welcomed by the voters, who have already forgotten that, last week, that pol took the opposite position.

And, if "historic support of an issue" is needed, if a politician is being called out for a flip, he can display lots and lots of sound bytes that demonstrate that, at various moments in the past, some consistency lay.

The simple truth is this: It's all about "electability." Liberals will say anything – anything – that will get them elected.

If voters took a few moments, read some history, researched some key issues, examined the voting records of elected officials, or heck, just kept track of what a candidate said yesterday, then a person like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton would garner 9 percent of the popular vote, instead of 48 percent. [Where does 9 percent come from? This is the percentage of Americans who cannot be dissuaded from their belief that Elvis is still alive.) If Americans took the time to educate themselves and exercise a modicum of common sense, Democrats (in their current liberal form) would never be elected to office again. Anywhere.

Tim Hirota

Related special offer:

"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party"