WP: The Inconsistent Waffle Factor
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, October 8, 2007; Page A03
....The question of why Clinton is not being punished for what some say is her about-face on the war is vexing the Obama campaign. But it is also of increasing interest to political scientists and psychologists.
Waffling, or the perception of political inconsistency, played a big role in the 2004 presidential election, when Sen. John F. Kerry's contortions provided President Bush with endless ammunition. Studies have repeatedly shown that voters say they want consistent leaders. Evidence, however, has recently emerged to suggest there may be basic differences in how Republican and Democratic voters perceive waffling, and that voters may view inconsistency differently among Republican and Democratic politicians.
In one experiment conducted in Obama's home state by psychologists Cynthia Nordstrom and Susan Thomas of Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville, volunteers were painted a picture of an inconsistent politician. The psychologists found that while waffling among all candidates was frowned upon, voters were more likely to punish Democrats who waffled. "Moreover," they noted in an article they published this year in the North American Journal of Psychology, "the Democratic candidate was perceived to be more of a waffler and was less likely to be voted for than the Republican candidate."
If Democrats are held to a tougher standard for inconsistent stances, why have Clinton's positions on Iraq not come under greater fire? Nordstrom's results might have been influenced by the 2004 election, in which Democrats were painted as wafflers. But, Nordstrom and others said, it is also possible that Clinton and Kerry have been treated differently because he was facing a general election, whereas, so far, she has dealt only with Democratic voters. Michael Tomz, a political scientist at Stanford, said partisans might be generally more willing to forgive waffling among politicians from their own party....
***
Nordstrom said several factors that have dovetailed since 2004 also may have changed the way inconsistency is perceived by the American electorate as a whole. The immense unpopularity of the Iraq war may have caused voters to value consistency less highly than other qualities, she said. What this means is that when public opinion on an issue swings overwhelmingly in one direction, voters may care less about waffling and more about having a politician agree with them. President Bush's unyielding stance on the Iraq war may have also given consistency a bad name, Nordstrom added....Finally, (Hillary Hoffman, a psychologist at the University of Miami) pointed out that for many Democratic voters, Clinton simply might not be perceived as being inconsistent at all. "Clinton is saying she didn't change her mind, but that the circumstances she knows now she didn't know then," Hoffman said....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701112.html