And screw the flip-flopping label, too!

On Thursday, to the surprise of pretty much nobody, Barack Obama decided to opt out of public financing for the general election. This was widely seen as breaking a promise, or going back on his word, or flip-flopping. Or all three. The rules of public campaign finance are both complicated and boring, but the basic gist is that candidates agree to spending limits in exchange for matching funds from the government that add up to more than $80. Obama is the first candidate to opt out of public funding since the system was established in 1976 in the wake of Watergate. It all but guarantees him a colossal advantage in spending, especially in the last two months of the campaign.

In a video announcing his decision, Obama called the system of public financing “broken.” I’ll take that a step further and say that it’s not just broken — it’s stupid. The idea that the government was going to give the Barack Obama campaign more than $80 million dollars is ludicrous; it’s like a homeless person donating money to Microsoft. The government is racked with debt. Why should it be paying for campaigns?
I get that the point of the system is to limit money in politics. But the government already does that by limiting individual contributions (thanks John McCain!) I’m also aware that $80 million is a drop in the bucket to the federal government, who probably spend that much on ashtrays for a single submarine. But if you care even a little about balancing the budget and cutting wasteful spending (ahem, McCain) then you’ve got to at least compare the importance of health care to the importance of a swing state position ad.

Plus, there’s this point: over 1.5 million people have contributed to Barack Obama’s campaign. How is that notpublic financing?

McCain says Obama is going back on his word. He’s right. However, this is pretty rich coming from McCain, who just this week reversed himself on offshore drilling. That issue joins tax cuts, torture, and illegal immigration on the list of McCain flip-flops. I happened to catch Bill Bennett (himself a pseudo-flip-flopper) on CNN, who excused McCain’s change of mind on drilling because it was the right policy.

For once, I agreed with Mr. Bennett. Not about off shore drilling, but about flip-flopping. Who cares if a candidate flip-flops? If it’s the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. I don’t care that McCain flip-flopped on torture, I care that he voted to allow water boarding. His previous position has no bearing on the matter. After all, are people not allowed to change their minds? Doesn’t it take a courageous person to admit that he's wrong? Isn’t the humility to do that one of the things (along with intellectual curiosity and the ability to speak in public) that George W. Bush so severely lacks?The real knock on flip-flopping is that it’s indicative of political opportunism. Of course, politicians who aren’t politically opportunistic don’t get very far. Even Ron Paul has a constituency to answer to every two years.

And so, I’d like to offer yet another proposal. In fact, make it two: a moratorium on public financing, and a moratorium on charging people with flip-flopping.

–Hillel Aron