Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?

Critical Thinking - A Lost Art

There are plenty of topics for a blog in today’s news:  the bias of the top people in Mueller’s investigation; their special treatment of Hillary and their being instrumental in the initial allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia; the use of the FBI by a sitting administration to conduct opposition research against political opponents;  whether the Mueller investigation has overreached; whether it has any legitimacy at all given the revelations of the past few days; Time’s choice of the hysteria-driven and victim-creating #MeToo as its person of the year;  recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the hypocrisy of the Democrats outcry against Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem when they supported it in the past; Conyer’s retirement and who will take his place; what SCOTUS will decide about whether a cake artist can be compelled to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs and whether his refusal to do so is unlawful discrimination against members of the LGBT community; the Tax bill; immigration; the actions of the deep state; and on and on and on.

But, today, this being my 100^th blog posting, I will talk about something else.  Something more important than even the most hysterical hysteria of the day.  Something the lack of which underlies much of the hysteria and news-as-entertainment we see today.   Today I will talk about thinking:   deep thinking, CRITICAL THINKING.  This is something that seems to have been lost in our country, and without it I don’t see how we can ever stop the daily hysteria and the havoc it causes to our country and our lives.

Critical thinking is simply the ability to objectively analyze facts or evidence in order to reach a conclusion or form a judgment.  The key here is the word “objective” meaning unbiased, unprejudiced, impartial, detached, dispassionate, and fair.  Critical thinking is performed by the one reaching the judgment or conclusion.  It requires clear and rational thinking.  And, it is sadly lacking today.

Critical thinking means that one questions everything, even their own beliefs.  One does not accept something just because someone else said it was true, even if that is a someone whom one respects or with whom one always agrees.   And, it means that one is able to distinguish between people themselves and the positions that they hold.   (That is, one may find an individual repulsive, but that does not mean that the individual’s agenda is also repulsive). 

In the last few days I have heard from individuals who support Democrat policies that anyone who does not support those polices is not only wrong, but an idiot as well.  I have heard parents ask how to tell their children that their teacher is “wrong” when the teacher has expressed or explained a viewpoint that runs counter to the viewpoint of the parents.  I have heard people say they will not even consider reading new or opinion pieces from sources labeled as holding political views to the right or left of their own.  I have heard people explain that it is too time consuming to read even a full synopsis of an issue or controversy, so they simply read the highlights as selected by their favorite news source, even if things such as quotes are distorted or otherwise misleading and taken out of context.  And, I regularly hear people adopt the conclusions and judgments presented to them by their favored source without any further inquiry or research.

These are all examples of the pervasive lack of critical thinking in our society.  Let’s look at these in more detail, beginning with the parent who thinks that he must tell his child that he is right and the teacher is wrong.  Not only is the parent not exercising critical thinking (not asking for details and context of what the teacher said), but the parent is not teaching or allowing his child to become a critical thinker.  Placing a child in an environment where one authority figure is always right does not teach a child to exercise her own mind and reach her own judgments.  A parent who expects a child to adopt all the parent’s beliefs unquestioned does not teach the child how to make her own judgments and decisions once the parent is no longer there.  In the instance where a parent finds a teacher or other pushing a viewpoint contrary to that of the parent, the better approach is to discuss, at an appropriate level for the child, the different ways of looking at the question. explain why the parents hold the belief they do, while accepting that others may hold other beliefs.  That allows the child to understand that there is more than one way of looking at something, that there may be a need to understand context or find further facts or evidence.  Even if the child is expected to accept and follow the parent’s view at that point in her life, it teaches the child about thinking, about the possibility of other views, and about tolerance of other views. 

Those are some notes for the parent, but I also have notes about the teachers and our education system.  From what I see, very little time is spent on teaching critical thinking skills.  Teachers seem to have no problem presenting their views and judgments as fact that the student either must accept, or will accept in order to please the teacher.   Emotional arguments and conclusions are accepted by teachers with no demand for logic or rational support.  Students are encouraged to express their feelings with little demand that their articulation be clear, organized, or well thought out.  Of course, logic, developing support, indeed, learning and thinking itself, are hard work.  There seems to be an aversion to the idea of work in school these days.  Rather, teachers want kids to have fun; they seem to seek friendship rather than respect from their students. And, we have placed upon teachers the burdens of parenting, social work, and other requirements that are not part of a teacher’s traditional duties or trained skills.

If we do not teach our children how to be critical thinkers, then we cannot expect to see critical thinking in our adult population.  If we train our children to simply accept the judgment of one or another authority figure then we cannot expect them to do otherwise as adults.  Thus, we have people who simply accept whatever superficial judgment sounds good to them without even seeing a need to do their own inquiry into the rationality and legitimacy of that position.   Looking more specifically at politics, we have people who support each and every position of their preferred party, without any thought or investigation.  We have people who support or oppose views simply because they like or do not like the individual who professes those views.  This is especially senseless in that it confuses an individual with an institution of which that individual is a part.   Every leader as an individual will have a variety of qualities that will generally be liked or disliked, but that individual’s administration and its policies should and will eventually be judged by different standards in the context of history (this assumes of course that those whose goal it is to erase history will not in the end succeed). 

Of course, the problem with all this is that we end up with two warring camps:  those who blindly accept the view of one side on an issue and those who blindly accept the opposing view.  Arguments about the issue devolve into calling the other side stupid, idiotic, or similar names because without critical thinking and its use to arrive at and thus understand the views one has adopted, one cannot really debate the issues themselves.  So, it becomes simply cults of personality and ad hominem attacks on those holding opposing views.

Sure, it would be easier to have clear cut right and wrong answers to every one of life’s issues.  But, life is far more complex.  And, in order to make sound judgments about the issues that face us as individuals and as society as a whole, we must be able to critically think about them.  We must take the time to fully learn the relevant facts and to fully educate ourselves about various and competing viewpoints.  We must each of us examine this body of evidence that relates to each issue upon with we have or would like to take a stand.  We must each arrive at our own understanding and our own conclusions, based on our own examination; we must not be content to simply accept that which we are told. 

When it comes to politics, our education must begin with a clear and objective understanding of the history and core principles of this country.  We must read and understand our Constitution as well as how it has been interpreted and applied throughout our history.  Before taking a position on a law or regulation we must fully understand if not entirely read the operative provisions of the rule and must understand the basis of differing views about the rule.  We must consider not simply the immediate effect or gratification but also the long-term consequences of what is done or not done.  And we must listen to full words and context when a politician speaks, not be content to have only the particular sound bite chosen by the nightly news or our preferred Twitter feed. 

Yes, this all asks a lot.  Making informed decisions takes time and effort.  But no one said that being a responsible citizen and a responsible adult is an easy task.  It is, however, a serious and a critical task.  Without critical thinking we are governed by emotion alone and our world becomes less rational and more angry.  Teachers and parents together must insure that children learn the skill and the joy of deep and critical thinking, and then as adults we must demand of ourselves and of others that we use those skills in making the important decisions and judgments that affect all of our lives.