Politicians change positions. Sometimes new evidence explains it. Sometimes circumstances change. Sometimes an election does. Tennessee voters deserve a better standard than treating every change as either betrayal or growth.
“Flip-flop” may be one of the easiest accusations in politics.
It is also one of the least precise.
A candidate says one thing in 2021 and something different five years later. An opponent places the statements side by side. The advertisement almost writes itself.
But two different positions do not automatically tell voters why the change happened.
That requires more work.
As Tennessee evaluates Marsha Blackburn, Jerri Green and Lauren Pinkston, The Redemption Project will use a more demanding standard.
A reversal is evidence.
The explanation matters, too.
Context should not erase accountability. Accountability should not erase context.
Did you read the previous articles on each candidate? If you answered no, but you have an interest in learning more – look no further.
Learn about Marsha Blackburn
Blackburn provides a clear example
On Jan. 2, 2021, Blackburn joined a group of Republican senators announcing that they intended to oppose certification of disputed electoral votes unless Congress established an emergency audit of those states.
The statement was explicit. Blackburn and the others said they intended to reject electors from disputed states unless an emergency 10-day audit occurred.
Four days later, rioters attacked the U.S. Capitol as Congress met to count the Electoral College votes.
After Congress reconvened, Blackburn voted against sustaining objections to Arizona’s electoral votes and, after midnight, Pennsylvania’s. Both states’ electoral votes were counted.
The following day, Blackburn and Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty condemned the violence and said Congress had reconvened to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and prepare for a peaceful transfer of power.
That is a documented change from Blackburn’s stated intention four days earlier.
Calling it merely a “flip-flop,” however, removes relevant information.
The change occurred after an extraordinary intervening event: the attack on the Capitol.
Voters can judge the original decision.
They can judge the later votes.
And they can judge whether what happened on Jan. 6 adequately explains the change.
But the chronology belongs in the story.
Blackburn naturally provides more documented examples in an article like this because she has spent far longer in elected office than Green or Pinkston.
That should not be mistaken for proof that she is uniquely inconsistent.
It means there is simply more public record to examine.
Sometimes new evidence complicates an earlier position
Blackburn’s opioid record presents another category.
As a member of the U.S. House, Blackburn was an original cosponsor of an earlier version of legislation that ultimately changed the legal standard the Drug Enforcement Administration used when taking certain immediate enforcement actions against controlled-substance distributors.
The legislation’s supporters argued that it would protect legitimate patient access to prescription drugs while improving cooperation between regulators and the pharmaceutical supply chain.
After the law took effect, DEA officials and investigators argued that the new standard had weakened the agency’s ability to act quickly against suspicious distributors. A Washington Post and “60 Minutes” investigation brought the controversy into national view in 2017.
Blackburn initially defended the legislation.
In 2018, she later joined legislation intended to undo the disputed enforcement changes. PolitiFact, reviewing the history during that year’s Senate campaign, concluded that she had switched her position nearly a year after the controversy became public.
That history deserves deeper examination elsewhere in this series.
But it illustrates another category of political change.
A policymaker supports an approach.
Serious criticism and evidence about its effects emerge.
The policymaker later supports changing it.
That can accurately be called a reversal.
It may also represent a correction.
The evidence — including what the politician knew, when they knew it and how they responded — should determine which description is fair.
Green and Pinkston present a different problem
The absence of comparable reversals does not automatically prove greater consistency.
Green was elected to the Memphis City Council in November 2023 and began serving with the 2024 council term, after previously working inside Shelby County government.
That gives voters a much shorter elected record to examine than Blackburn’s.
Pinkston has no elected voting record.
Her campaign presents willingness to reconsider policies when evidence points toward a better approach as part of her governing philosophy.
That creates an interesting future test.
If Pinkston changes a position, the change would not necessarily contradict the philosophy she is advertising.
But she would still owe voters an explanation.
A willingness to reconsider policy is not permission to avoid accountability for changing it.
The same standard should apply to Green.
And Blackburn.
And anyone else asking voters for power.
Not every change is the same
For the rest of this series, The Redemption Project will separate several categories that campaign advertising often collapses into one accusation.
A reversal occurs when a candidate once supported a position and now supports a materially contradictory one.
An evolution occurs when the underlying principle or goal remains substantially the same but the proposed policy changes as circumstances or information change.
A correction occurs when a candidate concludes an earlier judgment was mistaken and acts to change or repair it.
A change in emphasis occurs when rhetoric, priorities or presentation change without clear evidence that the underlying position has.
And sometimes the correct category is simply unclear.
The available evidence may not establish whether a meaningful position changed or why.
That last category matters.
Political coverage should not manufacture a contradiction because a headline needs one.
But it should not manufacture an explanation for a politician, either.
Changing your mind is not the same as escaping your record
If every changed position is hypocrisy, politicians are rewarded for refusing to learn. If every changed position is growth, accountability disappears.
A healthy public life must leave room for correction without making accountability optional.
Changing your mind is not automatically a weakness.
Refusing to explain why you changed it can be.
The question for Tennessee voters is not simply whether Blackburn, Green or Pinkston has ever moved.
Almost every person who spends enough time making difficult decisions eventually will.
The better question is what moved them.
New evidence?
Changed circumstances?
A mistake honestly recognized?
Political pressure?
A new constituency?
Or an approaching election?
Sometimes the record will provide an answer.
Sometimes it will provide only suspicion.
And sometimes the responsible conclusion will be that we do not know.
That is the difference between documenting a change and understanding one.
I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I founded The Redemption Project, as a place to focus on civics, rebuild non-partisan trust, and provide educational and emotional grace while learning about the news. I also have a column in Knox TN Today. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in other outlets including; Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.
