Four years ago I believed that health care was a benefit earned through hard work and personal responsibility. Exceptions could be made for the institutionally disenfranchised, but only through private charity. Now, as I write this at roughly 2:47 this afternoon, I believe almost the exact opposite: Every human being has the right to live by virtue of their membership in our moral community. Along with this, I am committed to the position that we are obligated to provide universal health care. And since private charity is currently not fulfilling this obligation, we must act through government. I’m not going to try to convince you of my current position, although you’re completely wrong if you disagree with me. Instead, I’d like to resign my commission as a rational animal.

I came to this decision after reflecting on how I fit in with America’s ideal for personhood. To get a good idea of exactly what this ideal was, I referred to the research of our foremost experts on the subject: campaign managers. These sociological wizards devote years of their life to carefully and continuously measure what people want other people to be and adjust the public persona of their politician to reflect the freshest estimation of above-average Joe.

So, what did I learn from them? Well, not only is our ideal localized to specific geographical areas, ethnicities and economic standings, but also it doesn’t seem to contain any actual humanity. You can drink beer but you can’t be drunk; you can have sex but only to procreate and you can have strong emotions but only for the US of A. And the most important feature of all, that transcends all American subcultures, is that everything you say and do must be absolutely consistent throughout your entire life. If there is any contradiction either in your behavior or opinion, it better be the result of being hit by a bolt of light from the sky.

You might recall Mitt Romney’s auspicious conversion to being against abortion. He went from declaring in his platform for governor in 2002, “(I) would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s,” to saying in an Op-Ed in 2005, “I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view.”

In response, the American people demanded a suitable explanation, which Romney’s campaign provided. Apparently Mitt Romney had a conversation with a stem cell researcher at Harvard in 2004: “Didn’t they tell you yet, Mitt? Pro-choice means clubbing pregnant women and vacuuming out their fetuses.” Of course, this conversation didn’t actually occur, which was brought to light later by that researcher, Douglas Melton. But remember: We only care about internal consistency, not correlation to the real world.

Unfortunately, nothing that makes an interesting narrative contributed to the transformation of my viewpoint on health care. I just changed my mind. There was no new evidence that shocked me into liberal compassion or scared me away from a libertarian faith in private charity. Not only would I not be able to provide an adequate explanation for this change, but I don’t think there is one. When an issue is sufficiently complicated and warrants some detailed beliefs, I highly doubt that anyone experiences a wholesale change of position in one stark moment.

So why do we hold politicians accountable for changing their minds? Is it actually because this is our ideal for all citizens, or just a higher standard to which we hold our representatives? Regardless, it seems to me that a better metric for strong character would be the extent to which a person is willing to warp information for their own ends. Instead of “flip-flop” being the dirtiest word in politics, it should be “spin.” But instead, we laud the deft politicking of spin-doctors and demand justification when a candidate shows affinity for new solutions. In absence of this ideal, American democracy has moved from the meaningful dialogue of our constitutional convention to thoughtless groveling in a cult of consistency.

Justin is a senior in religious studies. Emi Kolawole is his idol.