How can we have discussions about important issues – issues that
have more than one possible solution – if we can’t even define what those
issues are?
This is really a question related to logic, and the reason
it is a problem is in large part because a vast majority of people today seem
to want to make decisions based, if not solely, at least primarily on
emotion and not on clear thought.
For example, recently after the President’s speech announcing
his intent to declare a border emergency, a local TV station posed this
question to its listeners: “Do you want
a border wall?" Now, that question can be
answered with a simple “yes” or “no” though such answer would not address the
depth of the situation or the answerer's support and reasoning for the
answer. But it clearly asks the
recipients of the question to state their position on the wall. Not on the emergency declaration. Not on how they feel about immigrants
themselves. Not on what they think of
President Trump. Not on how many Democrats
previously have made statements in support of the wall. Not on what a physical barrier should be
called. Not on whether those who enter
the country illegally should be treated differently from those who enter legally. Etc. Yet
the answers given were often to one or more of these other questions, rather
than to the question asked. If a
discussion had ensued between those answering, the participants would have been
discussing different issues; like a tower of babel there would be no real understanding
and hence no real resolution of any of the issues that individuals thought they
were discussing.
All of the above are relevant to the broader
immigration debate, but if we are ever going to have such a debate, we must
clearly identify the pieces and their corresponding question that go into that
debate and are parts that must be resolved before the larger, overall question
can be resolved. We cannot have a discussion where one participant thinks they are discussing one point while another thinks they are discussing a very different point.
Staying within the same general area of immigration and the
wall, but with a different focus, people may wish to debate the President's
emergency declaration. But if they wish
to have a productive discussion they must understand precisely what they are
discussing. Is it about the 1976
National Emergency Act itself? Is the
question a comparison of this declaration with previous declarations including
the 31 still in effect? Is it about the 1982 statute that gives the President a
number of emergency powers including the power to authorize and construct
military construction projects using any existing defense appropriations for
such military constructions? Is it
whether Congress should revise this statute and if so, could that retroactively
affect the President's powers under a current declaration? Is it whether it is a “military construction
project” to build a structure that defines at least parts of a country’s border
so as to at least in part prevent illegal entry into that country?
And, within the broad topic of immigration, underlying all
questions about the wall and border crisis are the bigger policy questions of
whether or not to have open borders and if borders are to be controlled what is
the best way to do so and what requirements and restrictions should be placed
on those wishing to enter the country. Answers
to those broader questions direct answers to more specific questions and so must
be defined and debated as their own issues.
Complex issues have many complex sub-parts. This is not only true for immigration. It is true for any question that has more
than one possible answer or solution and about which people wish to discuss and
debate those possible resolutions. Before
the broad and bottom line question can be resolved, its many sub-parts must be
addressed and resolved. To do that,
people must be informed about and understand the facts, laws, and other
relevant information about each piece.
And, there is the problem!
When people make decisions emotionally or based on prefabricated
conclusions, there is no need to consider facts. There is no need to be fully informed or to
use the mind to consider the many significances of varying interpretations of
facts and the many possible consequences of varying ways of addressing those
facts. It is much easier just to react
with a sound-bite and conclusory stance on an issue.
Here are some recent examples.
It feels good to
say we will let everyone come on in to America, that we are thus caring about humanity.
Hence, one takes a stand against a wall or for open borders or against
an emergency declaration without full consideration of the relevant facts or
the likely real world current and future consequences of those positions.
It feels good and
conforms with the progressive script to say Amazon like all big corporations is
evil, so kick it out of your town without any consideration of the people who
might have found a good income from new jobs created (never mind a total
misunderstanding like that of Ocasio-Cortez of the fact that a tax break is not
money in hand that can be handed out to people - see Meet the Press interview with DeBlasio in
which he explains that Amazon would have brought in 27 billion in jobs and
revenue and out of that Amazon would have received a 3 billion tax break, but
that none of that money currently exists, contrary to AOC’s assertion that the
city already had and has 3 billion to give away HERE ).
It feels good to
say Trump should be removed from office, so never mind the fact that the 25th
amendment is not the way to go about it (Constitutional Law Scholar Alan Dershowitz
has repeatedly explained that invoking the 25th Amendment to remove would be a
fundamental misuse of its original purpose. See HERE ).
It feels good to denounce
Trump supporters as racist and homophobic, so don’t wait for facts before
attacking them and blaming Trump for an alleged attack on Jussie Smollett. Then follow Pelosi’s example of quietly deleting your tweets and statements
once the allegation becomes questionable. (see more generally this blog dated January
23 “Quietly Delete” HERE )
And, more broadly,
it feels good to denounce Trump and his supporters without actual consideration
of their actions, of the President’s actual accomplishments, the facts on
things like unemployment, the economy, foreign relations. It is simply enough to not like the President’s
looks or demeanor, or to simply accept assertions and conclusory sound-bites of
anti-Trump media and Democrats without individual thought and objective
consideration of evidence.
When we react to problems with emotion, based on a
preconceived and generic conclusions, we don’t think. And when we don’t think about such things as
understanding all the evidence and all the consequences of various courses of
action, then we end up making poor decisions often with unforeseen and negative
consequences.
Our form of government, a Democratic Republic, requires
people to be informed and to use their minds to critically consider options and
courses of action. It does not demand
that emotions be excluded from consideration, but emotions are simply one facet
of a problem which should be considered objectively with all other evidence as
one uses one’s mind to think about and fully understand an issue. We cannot react to and make decisions about important
policies based simply on a gut reaction or by mere acceptance of someone else’s
conclusion without our own examination of relevant facts.
This of course takes work.
Our form of government takes work.
It is easy to have a simple democracy of mob rule where the voice (and
rights) of the minority and the individual can be silenced; it is easy to have
a dictatorship where one is simply told what to think; but our form of
government recognizes, appreciates, and protects the individual. (For more on forms of government see this blog dated 8/10/18 Here)
Our Democratic Republic assumes that the individual
will be a responsible member of the community who will do the work necessary to
be fully informed and will do the mental work necessary to understand that
information. Only then can one
understand the many facets of an issue and have a productive discussion with
others about that issue and how best to resolve it. In order to continue to enjoy the freedoms and protections of our form of government, we must all do this work.
We, today, are faced with many complex issues. We can continue to address them with
emotional anger and reaction, or we can do our job as citizens of this
Democratic Republic and become informed about the many complexities of
important issues and discuss those complexities with rational thought and
understanding. By doing the latter we
increase our odds of arriving at solutions whose consequences are positive both
today and in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment