What Prevents Civil Discourse

 

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that this is pretty much what political discussions sound like these days.  No facts, no explanations of factual interpretations, just name calling and lies.

To be clear, if the disagreement is about facts alone, then only one can be correct.   The other may be lying, or simply misinformed, or without a thorough factual investigation.  However, if the disagreement is about one’s viewpoint or opinions, or factual interpretations that support those opinions, then neither can be absolutely correct, and neither can be lying.

And herein lies a key problem with today’s political (as well as other) discourse.  We seem no longer able to distinguish facts from opinions.

Facts are what they are and we cannot change them.  We can often interpret them in more than one way and can use them to support more than one viewpoint.  But interpretations, opinions, viewpoints are not facts and cannot be lies.  They can be based on lies, but they themselves are individual interpretations and in this country we are allowed to have our own opinions. 

This is why the distinction between fact and opinion is so important.  It is also why, until we can once again make that distinction, that our discourse will never return to the civility that once was and will instead continue to look like the above cartoon.

We also are living in a post-fact world where one’s feelings, hopes, desires – their narrative – rather than facts seem to be the “reality” that many prefer. Although living in a post fact world we still interact as if we were not, as if we were living in a reality governed by facts. 

Yet, in today’s times the narrative, not the fact is king.  For many today, if one believes something to be true, because it is their narrative, then it is so.  Inconvenient facts that do not fit one’s narrative are often ignored, and the bearer of those difficult facts is called a liar or worse and often silenced.

While issues can and often do have more than one viewpoint and more than one reasonable solution, we have gone beyond tolerance of opposing viewpoints to a belief that there can be only one.  That one is the one that one’s own controlling narrative says is the one.

We have confused fact with narrative and while someone certain of their facts can claim to be right and try to silence incorrect factual presentations, one cannot attempt to silence other narratives than their own.    To do so is to confuse reality with one’s own opinion or hope or emotional experience or other unverifiable information.  This confusion is not only present in today’s uncivil discourse, we see it all around us.

If one wants to check oneself and one’s beliefs against reality, against actual and complete facts, where do they go to find those facts?  Because it is only with a complete picture of the facts relevant to an issue that one can form an honest opinion about that issue.  And it is those real and complete facts that allow one to build arguments in support of their preferred resolution to the issue and then build a real world narrative based on those facts.

Today one has to spend hours going from news site to news site to try to ferret out the actual and full picture of any issue.  The line between news and opinion and propaganda has become so blurred that one must at a minimum check at least one source from every aspect of the political spectrum.  This takes a lot of time and few are able or willing to spend that necessary time on this task.  Others still have a sadly misfounded belief that they can trust their usual news source to give them a full and unbiased report.

The press currently fails us in its responsibility to report unbiased facts.  The many forms of media bombarding us 24 hours a day are mostly there to entertain and to make a profit, not to provide us with a fair and unbiased report of some occurrence.  Those who seek power are able to take advantage of the medias’ failings and of our confusion or ignorance of them.

This leaves the two political sides to each create their own story and assert that narrative as true.  And the supporters of each side are often more than willing to accept that narrative on face value and call those who don’t agree liars and disrupters.

I was recently told that this is a partisan world and how dare I take a partisan view (with which the speaker disagreed) and therefore further the partisanship.  There was a time when people with differing opinions could present them, question one another and discuss those views.  Unless we have the state mandating what we think we will always have a partisan or multi-opinionated society.  That is not a bad thing.  It is how we learn and grow and move forward.

Compounding the problem of inability to distinguish fact and opinion is the fact that the two political parties and their followers seem to have two very different and indeed opposing opinions of this country’s past, present, and future. 

These two distinct views of America cannot coexist in any unified form.  There are those, mostly on the Right, who generally like and believe in America as she currently exists.  While accepting her faults and working to correct them, they believe that the country and form of government created by our Constitution and developed over the last 240 plus years is good.  They do not believe it is static or that it should be so, but they do believe that it is worth preserving and changes to it should occur within its proven systems, governmental institutions, and Constitutional provisions.

The Left’s view, in contrast, paints a negative picture of America as she currently exists.  People holding this view do not think of America as a good country, they do not believe in her system of government and actually they do not trust the people to make the decisions about themselves and their country that our Constitution allows.  Many holding this view believe that problems in America’s systems should not be repaired or improved, but rather that the entire structure of America should be dismantled and completely rebuilt in a manner that conforms to their vision of what she should be.

The Left’s vision for a future America is unclear.  Like Obama’s promise of “hope and change”, no one can or will really articulate what the Left’s vision means – what it will look like in the larger picture;  instead it holds a different form in each believer’s heads.  (And this is the problem with narrative when it is not tied to actual and specific facts.)

We can, generally, distinguish the restructured view of America from that which currently exists.  It far more resembles socialism than anything we have today.  It includes a large government and would allow those in power to make many and significant decisions over the individual lives of the citizenry. 

Each side feels very strongly about its view.  The belief in a governmental system is far more deeply seated and passionate than a position on this or that issue; it affects the individual’s entire world and the world of their future generations.  It is not a wonder that passions are elevated when one is talking about their view for their very existence.

Both sides often assert the other is destroying the country.  Indeed, each really believes this.  But the destruction that the Left sees is often more a destruction of their narrative than an actual destruction of what in reality exists.   When the President does not do what the Left wishes he would, when his actions conform to our laws and our Constitution, he is not destroying the country; rather, his political positions,  policies, and opinions are not those of the Left and their narrative. 

Interestingly, this country, in its current form and with its current Constitution gives the Left legal and civil processes to challenge actions they do not like.  But in the Left’s narrative world, rather than follow these processes, their remedies are to break faith with the Constitution and do such things as silence the opposition, interfere with the administration’s performance of its Constitutional duties, and look to some form of mob rule for a remedy.  Their narrative allows – indeed they believe it mandates – that they do this.

This is what happens when narrative clashes with fact, or narrative with narrative.  There can be no civil discourse nor can there be a civil resolution because the rules are different depending upon on which side of the divide one stands. 

We have always had partisanship in this country as any free people should, but our debates were based on shared rules and an understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.  We were all playing by the same rules.  

Only when we once again respect the reality of facts and are able to distinguish factual reality from narrative will we be able to find our way back to some sort of civil discourse and debate and with that a way forward from the anger and hate that surrounds us today.

 

The Names We Call Things - Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

Often the Left asserts that the Right, and especially White Conservatives, has been “indoctrinated” with such things as White Supremacy, racial bias and hatred, etc.

In similar fashion the Right often asserts that the Left has been "brainwashed" – to hate Trump and his supporters, to hate America, to embrace Socialism, etc.

In most cases such name calling is the result of someone being faced with a viewpoint that is contrary to their own.  Why does a simple difference of view, stark as it might be, almost immediately devolve into name calling and the hatred that follows?

I submit that this almost knee-jerk reaction is a defensive one resulting from lack of critical thought.  Let me explain.

When one has thought through and chosen to accept a position, rather than simply adopting without thought that of another, the thinker will be certain in their position.  The thinker will know it can be defended.  The thinker will likely also be curious to hear the views of others about the viewpoint that he has formulated. He will always be ready to further assess both his view as well as that of others.

Those who are secure in their positions are not defensive about them.  But, if one, without thought, has merely put on the cloak of another and called it his own, then if attacked he is unable to defend that position and so becomes both fearful and defensive.  He cannot rationally discuss the underlying aspects of the position, so instead of engaging in such a discussion he simply throws negative names and labels at the one holding a differing view in an attempt to drive them away.  

Taken advantage of by those who sincerely promote their viewpoint (whether for the general good or for their own), many simply adopt a view that superficially sounds good to them.  But when challenged, they are left without ability to reasonably respond, discuss, and understand something different or challenging to their adopted view.  They can only react to what they see as and attack and, without understanding of their position they resort to name-calling as their only defense.  And, it is they, the name-callers, who are the ones who in some way have indeed been indoctrinated or brainwashed.

Now, the interesting question is which came first, the indoctrination/brainwashing, or the inability to think critically? 

From the moment anyone is born they face some sort of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is defined as “the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.”  Of course, there are some things that children must be taught as a basic means of survival – don’t touch a hot stove, don’t eat household cleaners, etc.  Others as a basic matter of civilization.  Relieve yourself in the bathroom, not the living room.  Parents will also teach their children the value system that they believe is good and best for their children.  Some of this early teaching will likely fall into what might be termed a mild form of brainwashing – “the process of pressuring someone into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”

But, good parenting, and good schooling will teach the growing child the additional and crucial piece of humanity called critical thinking – “the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.”  It is this piece that allows the individual to assess the information provided to him and to reach his own judgments - judgments that will determine whom he will be as an individual. 

Note, I do not suggest that children should be left to their own devices without any rules.  Of course some "indoctrination" into the family culture and requirements is necessary just as larger groups and the greater society must be taught certain rules and cultural norms that maintain the civility and civilization of that society.  But indoctrination must be balanced with critical thinking.

Sadly, too many parents and too many educators do not want those they are raising to question; rather they look for blind acceptance of what they offer.  They want the individuals in their care to be and become the individuals whom they would have them be rather than the individuals whom they are or are capable of becoming.  This is not only unfair to each individual; it is also unfair and harmful to humanity as a whole.

Too many individuals hold beliefs and values that are not truly their own; they do not have the strength of a person that has been taught to critically evaluate information and has indeed done so in regard to their own beliefs.  It is only then that they have both the strength and courage to fully engage peacefully and productively with others, some with the same and some with differing or even opposing beliefs and values.

And, without the strength of their own convictions, the uncritical thinkers become open fodder for those who would make one or another particular viewpoint the dominant if not only viewpoint in society.  Such a goal is not for the benefit of the un-thinkers; they are simply used by those who promote a goal for their own end – usually their own power to demand that all think as they do.

It is difficult to raise or teach critical thinkers.  It means teaching them to question everything and that includes the one raising or teaching them.  Most people don’t like being challenged and yet that is an essential part of teaching another to be a critical thinker.  Not easy, but essential.  If someone is not taught the importance of asking “why?” then one is being left to the control of others, a control that usually does not end well for the controlled. 

When critical thinking is not a working skill, others will easily take advantage of that fact.  It is only then that indoctrination and brainwashing on a grander scale becomes possible.  And, when that brainwashing or indoctrination is political, we no longer are able to have reasonable policy discussions, we are no longer able to reach across the aisle and compromise for a greater good.  And we devolve to name-calling and hatred.

Critical thinking – both teaching it and doing it – takes courage.  But it also imbues each and everyone of us the strength to be the individual that we are meant to be, not the useful tool of someone else who would think for us.  And if we would use our critical thinking, rather than simply calling names at those with different views we could perhaps have discussions instead.    With a sharing and a critical, curious, and open-minded examination of both our views, perhaps we can understand both.  We can understand if, where, how we may have similar goals as well as accepting where we cannot.

We are all capable of thinking critically, we are just not often encouraged to do so.  Hence, I challenge everyone rather than accepting political policies, to ask “why?” And again, and again, keep asking why to every answer you get until you just can go not further.  Ask what supports a point, who conducted a study, are there different studies, are there additional facts, etc.  Assess the answers.  How well do they support the policy asserted?  What questions do you still have about that policy?  Is it truly a policy that you wish to adopt and defend?

I realize that most people will not do this.  They will simply accept what sounds good and move on.  But we really must address many of the currently proposed policies more critically, assessing not only the policy itself but its ramifications and consequences, for if we do not question now, we may be giving up our opportunity to ever do so.   With critical thinking perhaps we could replace the names “indoctrinated” and “brainwashed” with “open-minded,” “tolerant,” and “understanding.”  It is those words that are necessary for a truly strong and free society.