The right to flip-flop

Today, the good folks at PolitiFact (a terrific non-profit org) asked, "Is Barack Obama's Libya intervention a flip-flop from what he said in 2007?" As the right gleefully wags its finger, many on the left are obsessing over the "issue."

At the time, then Senator/candidate Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Citing history, he qualified his words by saying military action works best when authorized and supported by Congress. He made clear this is his preference. But he didn't rule out going it alone. Even then, he was too smart to do that.

PolitiFact's (left-leaning) verdict: "Obama was adamant that the president did not have the power to authorize an attack if there was no imminent threat to the U.S. But now he has authorized just such an action. Full Flop." Well, that's one interpretation. Mercifully, PolitiFact stopped short of formally referring Obama to the Hague for "crimes against humanity" over his heinous flip-floppity.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate to Obama doing a loud belly flop (though he really didn't). But when did it become an act of papal heresy for a president to modify a stance or just change his mind about a matter after he assumes office? In 2007, Sen. Obama was speaking academically without the burden of or experience in the office he was destined to assume. In 2011, President Obama moved unilaterally on Libya because real world events demanded it. Delaying for the niceties of process would have cost lives. This is the difference between theory and practice. The two aren't the same. What matters is not that Obama flip-flopped. What matters is his judgment and motive. It was the right call because lives were at stake, possibly of genocidal proportions. And had time permitted it, would he have come before Congress on Libya. Of course he would. Does anyone actually question that? Remember, we're talking about Barack Obama, not Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon.

So what, in heaven's name, are we really debating here? Are folks arguing that the death penalty attaches when a president changes his mind? Are they saying inflexibility in the face of dynamic, real world circumstances is no vice? Really? Some on the left sure imply it. You know, there's a name for presidents who tout their political purity, ideological rigidity and abhorrence to change. They're called Republicans.

(If you're up for wading deep into the weeds on this "issue," then by all means read Politifact's smart and exhaustive piece.)