Flip-Flopping

I have been following the US presidential election closely since it started. There have been many interesting news bites and statistics that have been picked apart to no end by pundits so I'm going to ignore those. One thing that has stood out to me has been the allegation thrown back and forth from candidate to candidate of "flip-flopping". It is an old political attack which has probably been used since the invention of the flip-flop around 1500 B.C.

The idea is that we want our leaders to be sure of themselves and to be unwavering in their commitment to their principles. I agree of course, but is that what lack of flip-flopping really shows? If I think back on my opinions, political and otherwise, over the last ten years I have changed a good number of them. And if I were put into a position of making decisions that affect millions of people the scrutiny I would put on many of my current opinions would more than likely result in some of them changing. Does that mean that I am unprincipled and lack commitment? No. Does it mean that I haven't really thought about my stances on things? Not necessarily. More than anything it means that I am willing to explore ideas different from my own. It means that I am able to evaluate my existing beliefs with enough unbiased perspective that I can change them. It means that I am not blinded by theory and ideology to the point that I can't recognize I am wrong.

So when I see a see someone attacked for changing their mind, for revising their stance, my first thought is not "oh, what a political weakling". In fact I'm more likely to look at the person who presented the criticism with suspicion.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell

So the next time you hear someone accuse so-and-so of being a flip flopper it could be that so-and-so is a spineless political floozy. However, it could also mean so-and-so is a reasonable person who changes their mind when presented with convincing evidence and the accuser is an ideologically blinded fool.