As Hillary Clinton comes closer to the Democratic nomination, still contested by a persistent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the heat has turned up. The last debate between Sanders and Clinton was atypical for the duo, as their usually cordial air became more akin to a Republican debate, filled with negative attacks and sly shots at one another.
While most of Sanders’ objections were based on Clinton’s ties to Wall Street, one of the prime accusations against her this season has been that she’s a “flip-flopper”: a politician who changes her opinion any time she sees an opportunity to gain votes.
To say Clinton has adopted different views throughout her political career is fair. She changed her stance most notably on gay marriage and the Iraq war, two monumental controversies of the last decade. Even since her 2008 run, her views have shifted, leaving the public and media at large to question the ethics of her campaign.
“Will you say anything to get elected?” asked Anderson Cooper at the 2016 Las Vegas debate.
“Well, actually, I have been very consistent. Over the course of my entire life, I have always fought for the same values and principles, but, like most human beings — including those of us who run for office — I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world,” responded Clinton.
This could be seen as the reaction of a very practiced politician, but the question itself reinvigorates an age-old issue in politics. President Barack Obama was called a flip-flopper during his campaigns, and the title has been bestowed on him even as his administration closes its final months. Flip-flopping has become a commonplace term easily tossed out by voters and analysts, but the major pitfall of the idea is that it shortchanges the ability for politicians to evolve their views.
The staunch divide between Sanders and Clinton — or, more broadly, the revolutionary and the establishment — brings greater credence to the flip-flopper debate than usual. Sanders’ ticket runs on the promise of consistency, of not compromising to gain popularity. But the former Secretary of State and First Lady has acknowledged that throughout her political career she has changed her policies with intention.

The larger question arising from this divide is: Should voters always expect their representatives to continuously hold true to their beliefs, even from the very beginning of their political career? Sanders is a rare bird for sticking to the same policies since the 1980s, but does that show persistence or stubbornness?
Clinton’s former opponent, Martin O’Malley, thought that this obsequious obligation to the public was not the best role for her.
“Leadership is about making the right decision, and the best decision before sometimes it becomes entirely popular,” said O’Malley on CBS’ Face The Nation.
The best argument against the flip-flopper terminology is that it restricts the amount of flexibility that politicians have throughout their career. Society itself changes as time goes on, and most often, politicians are a reflection of those changes.
Throughout his career, Obama flip-flopped on the issue of gay marriage, though many believed that at heart he held convictions of its legality. Only when the American culture decided that this was its issue of choice did Obama feel he could advocate for its constitutionality. This earned him the title of flip-flopper, but that triggered reaction does not do service to the duty that politicians have to both their constituents and themselves, and this evolution is one that Clinton experienced as well.
Their own convictions become second to their duty to voters, which often means a cognitive dissonance in policy.
Clinton’s mobility is perhaps what makes her more center than far left. The ability to move with voters demonstrates greater compromise (perhaps making her a better politician). Sanders is not harmful politically, but it is only through the cooperation of these two figures — the staunch and the flexible — that government begins to work.
As Sanders begins to focus on his influence rather than his nomination, it would not be surprising to see Clinton and the Democratic Party adopt his views heading into the national election. The mass influence that he has garnered can bring massive changes to the party’s outlook, drawing it — and by association, Clinton — farther to left.
This is the balance between Clinton and Bernie; this is the power of compromise, not flopping.