wrythings

I’d like to see the media get back to reporting as opposed to pretending to think for us, especially when they get the thinking wrong and ignore the bigger news sitting alongside and staring us in the face.

The story of the weekend was Obama’s supposed flip-flop on public campaign finance. I think we use the phrase too loosely. Changing your mind, or reversing direction/decision isn’t an adequate definition. Necessary, but not sufficient.

Fish flip flop when they are out of their element, politicians when they’re spineless – not when their decision is grounded in a position of strength and consistent with their higher values. So, I’d like to upgrade the definition to a reversal followed by subsequent reversal(s), or a reversal mainly employed by “leaders” to keep supporters or to keep one’s self in place when it was clear one’s position wasn’t grounded to begin with.

A strategic choice can not be a flip flop. It’s a clear decision.

Further: You’re going to have to go a little deeper to decide if something is hypocritical. It’s absurd to label someone hypocritical when their values are consistent. How much more must be said?

Obama has eschewed PAC money and has a tremendously broad base of financial support from none other than the public. This is the campaign that has drawn a bright red line between big money and the public. If Obama’s people change their mind and accept big money contributions or unleash 527s … then I’ll be disappointed, angry and feel betrayed as will millions of others. That would be hypocrisy and would undercut the values this campaign has established. That wouldn’t be a flip flop either, that would be a blunder, plain and stupid. Flip flops are about not knowing which way the wind was blowing ahead of time, not how strong the wind would be.

I’ll say it again, I’m not into hero worship or idolatry, but I also am not going to accept false logic. I’m not an apologist for the campaign but rabid punditry deserves a flogging.

Lastly, this strategic decision is not an attack on public campaign finance. I feel clear that Obama supports the principle of public campaign finance. It doesn’t mean one has to take it. It doesn’t mean he isn’t right to state bluntly that it is broken. It clearly is broken when the other candidate can illegally flip flop – i.e. reverse himself and reverse himself again – and the laws remain unenforced. McCain’s campaign is breaking the law and the law and order types are nowhere to be found, the media is fairly silent and worse offering us some red hering and it appears democrats are not pressing the issue, or meekly at best.

So, yes, it’s broken and it makes sense to opt out if the other candidate won’t be held accountable to the rules and you can effectively run a campaign grounded in your principles . It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be there for future candidates as an option.

Strategy and grounded campaigning are not opportunistic or hypocritical, and it’s not a flip flop.

Apply logic before speaking. Do a double dose before pontificating. Check some facts. Prioritize facts.

The people have to make up their mind whether the character of the campaign matters. I think it does. The character of the campaign reflects the character of the candidate. We’re deciding the character of discourse we’ll settle for, and the character of governance that we want.

Making little of nothing isn’t a sign of character.