Stupidity Is an Equal Opportunity Affliction

It affects people on both sides of the political aisle.

I really don’t know if it is stupidity or just a failure to think or the effect of being brainwashed so that one’s responses to every other person and every situation is pre-programed for them.  Regardless of what we call it, it is frightening.

I am no fan of socialists, or of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but, assuming for the sake of argument that she is not terribly bright or is not taking time to think before opening her mouth, she is not the only one.  Some of her opponents on the other side of the political spectrum are just as negligent when it comes to using their brains.

Here is what brought this to mind.  Recently on Facebook someone shared an article with the headline, “Ocasio-Cortez announces bill to make electoral college tuition free.”  Now, the source was stated as “Genesius Times” and if anyone would have bothered to click on the information icon on the posing they would have seen that this is a satirical fake news web site.  Beyond that, even those who are of the opinion that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is pretty dumb based on many of her (in the opinion of this author often quite idiotic) statements, even those who dislike AOC and all that she stands for would have to realize that based on some of her past statements she knows what the Electoral College is.

No matter.  The majority of commenters were willing to react without thinking, because that is the default reaction that they have for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist.  The majority of comments appeared to come from people who are clearly anti-socialist.  The majority of comments suggested that this headline was proof of AOC’s continuing dumbness.   That is their default position and everything they look at will prove it without need for thought.

The irony is that in simply accepting the headline as a true statement when so much pointed to its falsity, they proved their own dumbness, at least in this instance.  They did not think.  Moreover, some of the comments revealed that the commenter did not even take time to think or learn what the Electoral College is as they argued against free tuition for all, or that it should give out tuition based on merit, etc. This is not that different from jumping to conclusions against the Right in the recent Smollett case, something that these same anti-AOC commenters probably condemned as reprehensible.

Yes, there is stupidity on all sides of the aisle, it abounds everywhere and in every aspect of our lives today, and that is how we end up with the government that we have.  These same people who can’t take one second to think, who just respond with a knee-jerk and prefabricated condemnation of someone who holds a different perspective – these are the same people who go to the polls and elect those who create our laws and govern us.  Frightening isn’t it?!

We seem to be living in a No-Think era.  I don’t really believe that people are as dumb as much behavior makes them seem.  What I do believe is that we are not teaching children to think, that we are not ourselves taking the time to think and that we are simply accepting conclusions that may or may not have any reasonable basis in fact.  This is dangerous.  This is how people become susceptible to a dictatorship.  This is how people lose their freedom and their individuality. 

Those of us who care about this can demand more of ourselves and of others.  We can ask questions about assertions that we and others make.  We can think before we speak and certainly before we act.  We can choose not to accept or reject statements just because of who made them (or whom they are about), but instead examine their substance and make our own evaluations and conclusions based on that substance, rather than on the conclusion that we have been told to reach based on whatever group we happen to affiliate with.

This is basic critical thinking, something we seem to have forgotten.  We need to resurrect it and move from this no-think era to one in which we use our brains to guide our behavior; where we listen and think before we act, where we are less self-righteous and more open to hearing what is actually being said, and where we take time to consider each individual person and situation rather than judge based on generic and identity characterizations. 

Yes, we are all susceptible to the affliction of stupidity, but we also all have the built in antidote.  It is called our brain.  It’s time we all used it.

Defining Issues - Thinking

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 25^th 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.