The Rhetorical War on Critical Thinking
Congress is waging a rhetorical war on the people they are sworn to serve. Their principal tactic is propaganda laced with distorted truth and sometimes lies argued from outrage. The success of this war depends on whether or not Americans start using our natural capacity for critical thinking, to wit checking out the facts before we cast our ballots. We aren’t a stupid people, but the power brokers think we are and we aid them in this belief by not demanding more straight truth, more facts from them.
As any campaign strategist knows its rhetoric and personality that win votes and put people in office. Critical thinking seems to be a rare commodity among our species even among those of us who know what critical thinking is and how to do it. We need to stop acting as if there is some golden age of critical thinking that guided our national sense of self in the past. A survey of the history of American political campaigns suggests there was no such era. The ubiquitous infotainment media that we are plugged into 24/7 only makes it seem much worse today than ever before. Because of the internet and talk show hosts bad ideas spread exponentially faster than ever before. The positive news here is that good ideas can spread this way too.
The first step in this process requires that we set aside our ideological preferences for just a moment so that we can ask the all important question, is this true, whenever a candidate or public office holder makes a statement. Is this true? This is a powerful question that can have revolutionary results if we are but willing to follow the facts to their factual and true conclusions. This kind of questioning is dangerous because it threatens to upend our basic assumptions. Our species likes to see pre-ordained purpose and meaning in every aspect of life and we seem to do our damndest to create stories that reinforce our assumptions about the way things are rather than risk being cast adrift. Uncertainty is uncomfortable and our brains seem wired to fill in the gaps whenever we reach the epistemic boundaries of knowledge and life.
The Democratic and Republican National conventions are just days away and already the race for the Oval office is heating up. There is no better time than this moment to begin looking at what we are being told by our candidates of choice. What are the facts vs. what they would like us to believe?
I voted for Obama in the last election and most likely will cast my vote for him again in November. I didn’t buy into the messiah like energy that surrounded the man and his campaign then. In fact, I found it worrisome and thought that Americans were setting themselves up for grave disappointment for an Obama presidency. I felt that there were large unrealistic expectations that would follow him into the Oval Office. I believe we will see the fallout from that as he fights to retain his office. His reelection will not be as easily won.
Nonetheless Obama is a shrewd, well-spoken leader that has served his country well. I blame congress (both Democrats and the GOP) for many of the problems we have experienced over the past 4 years. I always bear in mind that a president is only as effective as congress will let him be. We like to blame his predecessor for many of our woes such as the wrecked economy and the costly war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush did what congress let him do. There is a limitation to the powers of the executive office. That certainly doesn’t exonerate Bush for his mistakes and misdeeds nor will it exonerate Obama. This just reminds us to keep things in perspective.
When the Obama opposition uses the media to tell us that America is tired of Obama and that he is becoming increasing unpopular do I believe it? I believe it is true for 53% (Gallup, 2012) of the population. A 47% approval rating certainly isn’t the all time record setting high for a president facing reelection. But, given the tumultuous political and economic times of the past 4 years this is neither surprising nor unexpected. Gallup’s data show that Obama’s overall average throughout his term is 49% with the highpoint at 69% following his election. His lowest is 38% in Oct 2011 (Gallup, 2012).
President Bush who often had some of the lowest approval ratings in recent history was reelected to a second term. Democrats told us that America was tired of Bush and his disastrous policies too. Obviously we weren’t too distraught. The same is true for Obama. What these polls suggest is that Americans are still almost neatly divided along political and other ideological guidelines. Not much has really changed in this regard since 2000. For those not accustomed to critical thinking data can be easily misleading, especially if you don’t have a background in statistical reasoning, which many of us don’t.
Obama is no saint when it comes to telling the truth. I like the man, but his campaign has been stretching the truth about Romney to the point of extreme credulity. For example the Obama campaign has asserted that while governor of Massachusetts Romney raised taxes on the middle class and that he outsourced jobs to India (Farley, Robetson, & Kiely, 2012). But, neither is true…not entirely.
Romney didn’t outsource jobs. What he did do, however, was veto a piece of legislation that would prevent the state from doing business with a current contractor who did outsource some of its job functions overseas (Farley, Robetson, & Kiely, 2012). Not the same thing at all. But you can rest assured that many people have heard the message as Obama’s campaign intended. If this information influences their decision or colors their opinion of Romney then critical thinking is absent.
You might be tempted to excuse this not subtle distorting of the facts because, as it is with a good friend of mine, the Romney veto is as good as outsourcing the jobs. But, this is not critical thinking. In order to perform such thinking we need to know more information about the bill that was put on the former governors’ desk. Without reading what was presented to Romney we simply do not know what the impact would be - the pros and cons as it were. The facts as reported on factcheck.org simply mention that if the law were to pass a state contractor would be barred from doing business that it was already doing with the state (Farley, Robetson, & Kiely, 2012).
As for the tax hike, Farley, Robetson, & Kiely, have this to report:
§ The ad’s claim that Romney “cut taxes for millionaires” isn’t as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. That’s different than pushing for a tax cut.
§ The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. It’s true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times - a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers - but he was rebuffed every time by the state’s Democratic Legislature. (Farley, Robetson, & Kiely, 2012).
It turns out that the Massachusetts state Democrats actually opposed some tax cuts that he did try to implement - cuts that would have included the middle class that Democrats are concerned about in the first place.
Republicans are doing the same thing, of course. The health care reform law recently upheld by the Supreme Court is a thorn in their side. They routinely try to throw Obama under the bus for it making all kinds of wild accusations. But, they omit that the law itself has a conservative pedigree. It includes policy positions form the Heritage Foundation and mirrors many things that Romney did while governor.
The problem is that most of us will not go so far as to check beyond what their favorite pundits or candidates are telling us, especially if their agendas sound similar to our own. We get our news from highly biases news sources such as Fox News (conservative) and Alternet (Liberal/Leftist). The twisting of the facts is so prevalent that many even question the integrity of many legitimate news sources such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and CNN - all sources that practice journalistic integrity to the best of my knowledge.
This is not critical thinking and it’s a terrible way for an intelligent electorate to exercise their right to vote. Instead we accept what is often nothing more than arguments from outrage that get us outraged along with the author. Hot heads end up prevailing.
In the end this anger makes us stupid because we forego are right to think for ourselves and decide whether there is enough evidence at hand to accept the conclusions of those who have the will to be our leaders. The power brokers of the ruling class think we’re stupid and they may be partially correct because we often believe what they tell us is the truth. If we really want to ensure that the best candidates get elected we need to set aside our preferred political, economic and religious and assumptions and be willing to ask ourselves is this true?
Works Cited
Farley, R., Robetson, L., & Kiely, E. (2012, June 11). Obama Twists Romney’s Economic Record. Retrieved August 1, 2012, from Factcheck.org: http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/
Gallup. (2012, July 31). Presidential Approval Ratings - - Barack Obama. Retrieved July 31, 2012, from Gallup.com: http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx