Somehow, in our national discourse, the mere act of being open-minded enough to examine the opposing view is viewed with suspicion. Worse however is to change one's stated position, no matter how good the reason to do so. "Flip-flopper" has become a standard attack formation in our electoral attack-vertisements such that any self-preserving politician will never go back on what they once said.

When we're talking about promises to improve the working conditions, the national debt, or other issues where the candidate is making a clear-cut covenant with the electorate, that's a good thing - we should hold said person to their words. It is on their words that we elect them, so we should have full right to expect that their words bear fruit in actions as promised.

However, when it comes to issues of policy, where there is no simple black-white choice, then pretending to ignore the fog is far worse a sin than to acknowledge that one's vision is impaired and what was once the plan is now the folly. I would much rather have a driver stop, ask for directions, then admit that s/he needs to backtrack some.

But that will not happen again. "Flip-flopper" will be the devil on every shoulder in Washington, no matter how reasoned or compelling the angel. If this bears out, we will have a political caste more worried about doing what they've always done, rather than worrying about doing the right thing.

Nuance and reflex. One party seems to prey on the fears of our population. Mushroom clouds. Riots. Letting 'them' win. The answer to every thought-provoking question is a thought-stifling fight-or-flight dichotomy. There is no place for thought in that mindset, only in 'gut-checks.'

The other party places a high premium on doing the right thing, perhaps even to the point of rather doing nothing than the wrong thing. It gathers options and knowledge, but perhaps to the point that it cannot communicate the breadth of nuance to the electorate.

So here we stand, between these two. One that panders to our basest instincts - the fear of fire, the lure of gold. The other that trusts us to think and entrusts us with fact instead of fable. However, I look around me and see how mistaken these lofty goals and values are.

The electorate doesn't think. It's a mob, ruled by that mentality. It doesn't contemplate, it doesn't analyze. It reacts. It runs on instinct. It relies on its momentum as its compass.

So we have two parties, one that benefits from a stupid electorate and strives to perpetuate that state with its attacks on science and education and art and culture. The other that sees a reflection of its own enlightment upon the faces of the masses, and trusts them to see both the light of its platform and the depths of the opposition.

And we have us. In spite of the spirit of hope and change I hear non-stop, I still harbor a dire prediction that fear and ignorance will win out, that the loud and the shrill will drown out the honest and the nuanced.

Prove me wrong. Please.