Flop Flip

In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion. -James Reston

Perhaps common sense first depends on contempt for the influences that attempt to silence it. More specifically, virtually all earthly experiences. But once we identify the things that drive people into canyons of self-reciprocating dedication to error we can at least attempt to avoid them ourselves. It pretty much goes without saying that folks regularly make up for ignorance with ego, pride, flamboyance, consistency, or some cocktail thereof. Then, we perpetuate such barriers to thought by calling someone who changes their mind a "flip-flopper." As if one's worth is permanently tied to their dedication to the incorrect until their death. On the other hand, we associate the acceptability of our own thoughts to their popular appeal rather than their integrity. We do this to protect our pride and ego because we know that essentially we are ignorant - perhaps not of the principles of an issue, but certainly the minutia. Or, maybe we are familiar with the minutia and ignorant of the principles. They are interdependent, and one is meaningless without the other, but everyone leans one way or the other.

On a political level, it is always easier to be perceived as intelligent and viable if you are familiar with the properties of the minutia - it fosters the assumption that you identify with one or even several different or even contrasting principles. More importantly, the details that are popular and simple to understand can be cherry picked to appease the largest constituency even if the actual effect is contrary to the detail's associated principle(s). Alternatively, a candidate dependent on principle is restricted to the details that fall in line precisely with those principles without any contradiction. With an electorate interested in viability over principal, the most accurate candidate who chooses the most popular facts and presents them in the most attractive way will win. With an electorate interested in principal over viability, the most viable/minutia-oriented candidate will still win because the electorate underestimates each other's ability to identify the subtle contradictions. So, yes, we are all guilty. Might as well just admit it. Words will move around ideas by the very nature of the beast. We are just as much flip-floppers for maintaining our association to one migrating group or another as we are to changing our own positions.

The bottom line is...when a system becomes too complicated for anyone with the standard measure of common sense to adequately align principle to the matrix of interdependent contingencies (clusterfuck), we are left with the potential for mass-abuse of those sound principles. It's low hanging fruit for the least savory of people, and anyone who recognizes this should be tempted to join them. Who among us will stop grinding puppies alive and feeding them to the animal rights activists? And who will be so bold as to take the precious meat grinder away?