The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.

Solving Real Problems Means Distinguishing Reality from Ideology

Does ideology prevent one from seeing the most obvious distinctions of fact, let alone the more refined?  Or is it simply that we have dumbed down so much that many are no longer capable of doing so?

We seem to have lost our ability to think – to examine a situation for what it is rather than for what we might like it to be.  This does not allow us to find realistic solutions for real problems.  Some examples:

There is a difference between legal and illegal, yet when it comes to those entering our country, many are incapable of making this distinction.  The result is that we can’t get past that to address the real issues and rework our immigration laws.

There is a difference between solid waste pollution and global warming.  Reducing plastic bags (the current go-to feel good act for environmental activists), while reducing land fill solid waste, does nothing for climate change; it does not reduce CO2 or other emissions.  It may even aggravate climate change since it takes more energy to manufacture and transport the likely alternative paper bags.  But, apparently it has become too hard to think past the feel good act and consider even this obvious distinction.  And, the failure to do so likely means less focus on climate change solutions.

Those who would welcome all border crossers, legal or illegal, try to shame those who do not help them by quoting religious references such as “love thy neighbor.”  Yet they ignore the fact that we have citizen neighbors who are suffering from hunger, violence, and other conditions similar to those the migrants claim.   And, the demand to open the border as the only way to satisfy  helping one’s neighbor ignores that there are other reasonable and responsible ways to do so; indeed, one can question how it is “loving one’s neighbor” to place children in dangerous caravans, to promise families a “better life” here when they may not be able to find work and may end up in situations worse than what they left.   When the demand to help is limited to that which supports a political agenda, the motive is suspect, the actions tainted, and the “help” perhaps not so wise.

There also seems to be a basic inability or disinclination to read or listen.  "Narratives" overcome facts.   The instances of this increase daily.  But here are just 2 examples: 

Joe Biden is using a false narrative to support his campaign to “make America moral again.”  While Trump did utter the phrase that there “were very fine people on both sides” in regard to Charlottesville, that was in the context of referring to the fact that some people were there only to protest for or against the taking down of a statue.  He further clarified “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”  Yet, because it is more politically convenient to perpetuate the dishonest mischaracterization of the statement, many will overlook the dishonesty as well as the irony that this dishonesty is the underpinning of a campaign for morality.

Just one of many mischaracterizations from the Barr Senate testimony:  The Mueller report provides some evidence that Trump questioned Mueller’s objectivity and considered REPLACING based on conflicts of interest.  REPLACING.  Not firing and ending the investigation.  Yet, those (firing, ending investigation) are the words repeated over and over by Democrats in referring to this evidence.  When someone is replaced, the implication is that the job of that person continues (in this case, the investigation would then continue, not end).  Yet, driven by political desire to claim obstruction by Trump, the Democrats seem to have lost not only their ability to think, but to just plain read.

Finally, while politicians throw money at problems such as poor schools, violent cities, and poverty, the same politicians refuse to consider such things as different cultural values that may contribute to the problem and call those who would look at such differences “racist.”  That is, the bias or fear of political correctness often keeps us from even acknowledging that a problem exists.  The belief that all people are equal does not mean that everyone is the same.  Nor is it synonymous with equality of opportunity.   And, none of these concepts fully comport with reality.  Indeed, identifying particular behaviors or needs of certain communities that would enhance their equality of one or another opportunity may require identifying ethnic, cultural, economic, or other distinguishing characteristics of those communities.  Yet, such identifications are often seen as politically incorrect at best and racist at worst, so we avoid them with the result that the people within those communities suffer.

The above are only a few of the numerous examples available of over-broad thinking and characterizations that cloud our perceptions of and ability to deal with reality.  Reality is more than a wishful narrative and there are many shades and distinctions between even the most similar facts and situations.  To fully deal with and solve the problems of the real world we must first be able to identify these distinctions.

When we start letting our biases color, alter, and even eliminate actual facts we lose our ability to realistically and candidly assess a situation.  We lose our ability to solve or resolve a problem.  As a society we used to have a seemingly better ability to assess situations realistically and intelligently consider actual facts and make distinctions between facts and their circumstances.  

While intelligence demands the ability to make distinctions, biased rhetoric requires only emotion.  Emotions may give one the will to solve a problem, but it takes intellect to figure out how to do so.

Yet, today we find politicians grasping at straws and mischaracterizing evidence just to make a political point.   We hear people talking in bumper sticker rhetoric.  This riles the emotions but does little else.  Complex problems do not respond to sound bite solutions.  Instead they require clear and objective thought - thought that is based in reality not ideology.

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.