Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has been ridiculed for his fluid positions on important issues.

The lampooning of Kerry as a flip-flopper is common political protocol, and the Massachusetts senator has definitely left his flank uncovered for such attacks.

That said, exactly how much of Kerry’s flip-flopping is really a politician straddling the fence versus a man trying to balance his personal beliefs with his political stances?

Any such analysis should be prefaced by the fact that perhaps a person’s politics will reflect their personal beliefs and therefore any argument other than Kerry as a flip-flopper rings hollow. That said, personal desires do not always reflect legal limitations-such as a pro-life stance in the face of legalized abortion-though personal stances often lead to years and years of political strife to make changes for the better-such as the result of the civil rights movement.

Both of these issues-abortion and civil rights-are areas where Kerry has been called to the carpet by both Republicans and Democrats for his views. In so much as it is not just Republicans uneasy with the Democrat’s political ponderings, perhaps there is something to be said for the argument that Kerry is in fact balancing his personal feelings with political realities.

For instance, Peter Kirsanow in March of this year took Kerry to task in the National Review Online over a 1992 speech Kerry made at Yale University.

In the speech, Kerry was quoted as saying, &8220;today the civil rights arena is controlled by lawyers, and the winners and losers [are] determined by … rules most Americans neither understand or are sympathetic with. The shift in the civil rights agenda has directed most of our attention and much of our hope into one inherently limited and divisive program: affirmative action.&8221;

Such a stance is a rather conservative idea, and liberals were reportedly enraged at Kerry for his declaration. When pushed on the issue more recently, Kerry evoked the Clintonian idea of &8220;don’t end it, mend it.&8221;

Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, declared the affirmative action position Kerry offered &045; that of mending it &045; was not backed up by key votes in Congress where instead of attempting to push forward bi-partisan bills Kerry voted to hold the status-quo of &8220;quotas and set-asides.&8221;

Same-sex marriage is another interesting position where Kerry’s personal preferences and political realities do not mesh, but it is not one where he has been accused &045; as of yet &045; of flip-flopping or where conservatives have much room for argument.

Kerry, unlike most liberals, opposes same-sex marriage. Furthermore, he has left the argument as a state’s rights issue. Perhaps this battle is in too early of a stage to cause much friction between a politician and his liberal constituency or maybe Kerry’s personal preferences won out or it could be that Kerry just decides each issue individually.

Perhaps Kerry’s stances are political posturing (most of it probably is on the abortion issue), but perhaps &045; just perhaps &045; Kerry is actually reflective and insightful enough to understand that his personal opinions cannot always be vaulted into political sparring. At best, perhaps Kerry’s political posturing comes as a result of his reflection and the conflict within himself between his personal and political preferences.

Of course, when it is all said and done, Kerry’s political posturing may be just too complicated for the American people to grasp. If that is ultimately the case, it doesn’t really matter why; Kerry will lose if he does not more clearly define himself according to the right and wrong politics of today.

Sam R. Hall

can be reached by e-mail to

shall@sctonline.net

.