Over the past decade or so many terms have been attached to politicians and other public figures–ranging from the profound to the profane–but none have been more commonly known to deal political damage than being branded a “flip-flopper”. Whether this term has more history in the political discourse I do not know, but even with as little experience in the political world as I have, I know enough to know that the term, especially when used to describe politicians, is absurd.

The latest examples of the insult are attacks directed at Barack Obama and his alleged flip-flop on the new FISA bill. By most accounts, the accusations seem sound. But does the political class really hope to win votes by claiming that the opposing politician is behaving in a profoundly political manner? Examples of each candidate being accused of flip-flopping on one issue or another can be found in countless places just over the past few days. Is the duplicitous nature of the political class a 21st century revelation?

Of course not. Everyone from Charles de Gaulle (“Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word”), to Oscar Levant (“[A politician] will doublecross that bridge when he comes to it”), to Maureen Murphy (“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces”) has understood that politicians will twist in the political winds at least as often as Old Glory. So why have Americans become suddenly so prude in their judgment of presidential candidates’ verbal miscues?

Beats me. Most Americans have little interest in holding even the highest elected officials accountable for their words and actions once in office. As certain as death and death taxes, politicians will keep lying and keep claiming their own piety. And journalists will keep taking the bait.