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.

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.

Victimhood, Group-think, and Identity Politics: “MeToo” for Everyone

I have been thinking a lot about victimhood lately.  I have come to believe that we in large part encourage and have indeed become a society of victims.  This victim mentality seems to have merged with identity politics and together they seem to be pushing us to a place of superficial group-think that is a danger to our democracy.  Let me explain:

A victim is someone who is harmed or injured as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.  We have all been victims of something at some time in our lives.  There are many ways that one can deal with victimhood.  One can ignore the harm or injury completely – hard to do if it is much more than a stubbed toe.  One can seek an appropriate remedy for the injury – legal recourse, medical treatment, perhaps just an apology – and then move forward.  Or, one can bemoan one’s hard luck for a day, a week, or perhaps even a lifetime.   It is when one chooses to assume that permanent label of victim that they begin to demand attention beyond that which the actual injury merits. 

There are individuals who relish their victimhood; perhaps they emphasize or even exacerbate it simply as a way to get attention and special treatment (we will leave it for the psychiatrists to determine what was lacking in their childhood or their psyche that gave them this need for attention).  I suspect that these individuals are not very happy; I know that they can disrupt as well as make demands on the happiness of those with whom they interact.   But, what happens when we have a whole group, if not a whole society, filled with victims?

Identity politics seems to have co-opted the victim mentality.  Every group has its grievance and that grievance, they believe, gives them a permanent victim status with rights of special treatment for past wrongs. This does not mean that the original harm or injury was not real or that an identifiable group did not suffer some particular harm.  But, what groups seem to do is to choose not to seek redress and then move forward, but instead to assume the permanent label of victim seeking continuing and ever-more redress.   All those within any particular group are required to buy into the victim hood of the group or be cast out from that group identity.  Thus, we have blacks or gays or women who choose not to proclaim permanent victimhood being condemned by their respective black or LGBT or feminist groups. 

This group-think is important to the politics of identity, as is the inherent victimhood.  If one wants to use a particular class of people to one’s own advantage, one way to do so is to make those people unite in dependence on you and in opposition to some enemy.  This is a classic technique of community organization:  rile a particular community up against a caricatured evil enemy, make the community a victim of the oppressor.  Identity politics labels people according to group.  One must think and behave exactly as all members of one’s identified group.  Thus, group-think becomes required within the groups one supports and is assumed of all members of groups which one opposes. And, if a particular leader is seen as the advocate or savior of the aggrieved group, that group’s dependence on that leader will sustain the leader’s power.

Group-think is certainly an easier way to approach interactions with others than getting to know individuals.  It is also far more superficial and in the end very dangerous.  Victimhood combined with group identity and its incumbent group-think completely destroys dialog between individuals; it does not allow for differing viewpoints.  When one disagrees with a victim, they are often accused of challenging or attacking the victim.  This becomes a way for a victim to assert his or her position and/or demands without any push-back.  Because the victim is a victim their every need should be acknowledged, believed, and attended to.  Facts become irrelevant as the victim’s feelings become all important.

Here is an example from current events.  A woman claims she was a victim of sexual assault by current Senate candidate Moore when she was 14, nearly 40 years ago.  When Kellyanne Conway suggested in an interview by Martha Raddatz that we should wait for and look at the evidence, she was accused of calling the woman a liar and the conversation effectively ended.  Yet, one should be able to question allegations and seek further evidence without that being an attack of the person claiming victimhood.  This is especially true when the event alleged is 40 years old.  It is common science today that our memories are memories of memories.  One can fully believe that their recollection is accurate and as such it is true for them, but facts could prove otherwise.  That is, our memories can and do alter historical reality.  We are in a very dangerous place if the mere claim of victimhood means that anything one says or does must be accepted as true and tolerated without challenge or even discussion. (And this is so for either side in a he said-she said situation).

Permanent victims claim an inability to handle not only the past harm, but any and all future harms.  They become overly sensitive to any real or perceived words or actions that might harm them or that they find in some way offensive.  Because there is no opportunity for dialog about this, because we instead are asked to cave into every demand of the victim, we instead provide safe-spaces, trigger warnings, and try to avoid even the least micro-aggression.  We all walk on egg-shells trying to protect the victim from future harm or upset of any kind.   This does nothing but encourage more victimhood.

In our group-thinking identity groups every member of the group is encouraged to proclaim their own victimhood.  They are on the look-out for the slightest affront to which they can proclaim “me too.”  Thus we have women finding solidarity with their sisters who were raped by claiming “me too” for a cat call heard when walking down a crowded street, or a person of color claiming “me too” when they were looked at a little too long by a store clerk, thinking this gives them solidarity with a black man unjustifiably beaten because he was black.  This group-think victimhood has become a way of belonging, of joining the in-crowd instead of being left on the sidelines. 

And what this group victimhood does is perpetuate the group’s status as victim, creating anger, fear, and hatred against those outside the group who are the perceived victimizers.  Must all women hate all men because some women have been victims of sexual harassment or assault by some men?  Must all people of color hate all whites because some people of color have been victimized by some whites?  Must all Muslims be feared and hated because some Muslims have committed atrocities?  The list goes on.  But identity politics tends to force an affirmative answer to these questions. 

Those groups and those answers are useful to those seeking power through politics.  And that is why this culture of victimhood combined with identity politics is so dangerous.  Our democracy is based on education, dialog, and compromise.  All of these require free speech and none of these are possible when speech is foreclosed because someone might be upset by it.   In addition to ending the dialog necessary for democracy, victimhood can lead to a frightening police-like state that allows punishment based only on a victim’s claim, effectively destroying our justice system.  Again, Martha Raddatz in her interview with Kellyanne Conway urged an articulated standard of guilt it the court of public opinion.  Apparently, from Raddatz and other political and media urging in regard to the allegations against Moore, the claim of a victim alone should be enough for a verdict of guilty. Imagine how this can only encourage false claims of all sorts in order to remove individuals from positions of power (this is not meant to imply that the claims against Moore are necessarily false).

Group-think victimhood and its silencing of dialog and free speech also results in a superficiality that perpetuates rather than solves problems.  Take gun-control for example.  Every time there is a mass shooting the claim is for gun control, as if simply taking away the guns will solve the illness within our society that is the ultimate cause of the ever-increasing numbers of killings within our country.  We have become a society of victims and with that victimhood comes an alarming increase in hatred of those outside our victim-group, those seen as our group’s victimizers.  Taking away guns won’t fix this, though those who perceive themselves as possible victims may nonetheless believe they have the safe space they seek.

So what do we do?  First, let us stop encouraging victimhood.  Think of the child learning to walk who falls and scrapes his knee.  His mother can pick him up, brush him off, add a bandage if necessary, give him a hug, and then encourage him to get up and move on.  Or, she can fall all over his victimhood, teach him to never run again lest he be hurt again, and essentially send him the message that he is sadly unable to run like other children and needs a safe space along with all the benefits that those who are able to run, who are not victims, have.  Of course, that might be easier than getting back up and learning to run, but which would you choose for your child? 

In our society there are many individuals who have suffered a variety of wrongs.  In some instances, these individuals can be identified as belonging to a group – for example, Blacks descended from slaves who did suffer the injustice of slavery or women who have been denied equal pay.  There were unquestionably injustices and victims involved.  But permanent victimhood is not the way to respond.  And encouraging victimhood as a way of belonging to a group is also not the way to respond.  Looking for a safe and protected space where one will never be hurt again is also not useful (and probably impossible).  Better is to help victims to deal with their victimization appropriately and in a timely manner, resolving the situation, and then moving forward.  In the case of individual harm, this might mean a lawsuit, a complaint of some sort, medical attention, etc.  In the case of an injustice directed at a particular group, for example refusal to pay women equally, the remedy may involve both individual and class lawsuits, lobbying for laws or regulations, etc.  But in all cases the point is to promptly deal with the harm and then move forward, not wallow in one’s victimhood.

If society consists of perpetual victims always looking for their next injury, no matter how slight, then we will be stuck in a world where all dialog is silenced for fear of affront, where everyone demands their own safe space, where feelings, especially feelings of hurt are the driving and ruling forces, countered by fear and hatred between groups.  The individual will become lost in the group-victimization-think, as will our intellect, reason, and judgement.  Easier as it may be to fall and cry for others to pick you up while crying “woe is me,” it is more rewarding to pick yourself up and move forward.   Politicians seeking power would rather keep others as victims so that they will be dependent upon the politician’s power to carry them.   We need to see the danger of all this and stand up, each and every one of us, and refuse to support a society of victimization and divisive group-think.  Instead of crying “woe is me” we need to scream “we can be” – we can be ourselves, we can be problem solvers, we can work together with those unlike us, we can listen, we can think, we can be!   In the democracy that is America, the democracy that gives us our individual freedom, the “me too” victimization and group-think of identity politics is not for everyone; indeed, it should not be for anyone.