Isn’t it time that we stopped going with our “gut” and actually used critical thinking to analyze an issue and to make informed decisions about right and wrong?
Yes. I am talking about the political climate. All I felt while watching the Republican National Convention was anger, and my disappointment was reserved for the Democratic National Convention.
On one hand, you have a party that thought it was okay to bring a washed-up movie actor from some distant past and have him yell at an empty chair that is supposed to represent the president. On the other hand, you have a party that could only offer you emotionally charged stories that are more melodramatic than an everyday soap opera.
More “spin” tactics than ever were used in the media over the past two weeks. Social issues were given more importance than economic ones, as if to divert one’s attention from the unhealthy economy. The only relief was the energetic and fact-based speech given by former President Bill Clinton.
A friend recently brought to my attention how tired she was of both of these parties spinning the “women issue.” She said that she was confused and might not vote because one party wants to allow abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy, and the other wants to ban it even for rape and incest cases. These different views are as extreme as two parties can get on an issue. The same goes for most issues, be it economic or social. Two parties stand at such opposing poles that sometimes they seem disconnected from reality and everyday people.
But cynics might say, “Well, what do you expect — they are politicians, after all.” Yes, I get it. But the politicians are not sent forth by martians to take over the planet. They come from our society and their attitudes, to a certain extent, reflect the attitude of the society. So, what is the problem here? I think the problem is that we are not agreeing to disagree anymore.
An environment of extreme political beliefs promotes stereotyping — much like what we have seen over the past four years. Some of the comments made by the Republican leaders about President Obama were as vulgar as a bad joke uttered by a drunk person at a fraternity party. From calling him a “Kenyan Muslim” to accusing him of being anti-American, the Republican Party has really shown how dirty politics can be.
Even though the Democratic Party has been quite well behaved most of the time, I have seen a surge against any and all conservative ideas from the coffee shop liberals. From calling Ron Paul a fascist to naming the Tea Party activists “Teabaggers,” the liberals have spewed their share of hatred. I have been called a “Teabagger” countless times because I did see some merit in Ron Paul’s economic plan. I also have been called a “socialist” for liking some parts of Obamacare.
I do believe that there are many people like myself whose ideologies lie in the middle. They agree on some issues and disagree with others between the two parties. But as the elections grow nearer, it seems as if there is no room for discussion or common sense for that matter. One can argue that we need a third party to represent the libertarian views, but I don’t think that will solve this problem. It may elevate it.
If anything, now more than ever, we need the critical thinking skills that college is supposed to help us sharpen.
We need to realize that different problems call for different solutions, and different situations call for different actions. We need to understand one can be for war or anti-war, or for abortion or anti-abortion, depending on the situation. After all, no critical thinker would simply go with their beliefs or “gut” when it comes to situations of right or wrong. To be a critical thinker, one must challenge their own belief system and use facts to judge a situation before making a decision. Just because you classify yourself as a liberal should not mean than you would have to disapprove of everything “conservative,” and vice versa.
I urge my fellow college students to not promote stereotyping and hatred, and to not make a decision based solely on their belief system. Rather, assess a situation, gather facts and then apply critical thinking before embracing or condemning an idea or an issue.
In short, we all need ”” as my sociology professor says ”” a “crap detector.” It will help us sort out the garbage and find the real issues, the causes and effects of those issues and hopefully a solution to the problem we are dealing with. That may be the only way to stop this maddening political extremism and restore sanity in the political arena.
William S. • Sep 19, 2012 at 12:09 am
In a Republic the goal of any political party is to establish a solid base and then promote general ideas capable of attracting moderates. As such, these political parties come from us, they represent us, and put forward a platform that is loyal to their cause.
Proper discourse among opposing groups can never be achieved through negativeness directed toward the other group. It is ironic that the author would call for critical thinking on one hand, while castigating Republicans on the other. That is critical thinking? Ugliness isn’t partisan and occurs in relatively equal measure. Is characterizing an American movie legend as being “washed up” a valid exercise in critical thought? Mr. Eastwood just released “Trouble with the Curve,” how does his continuing successful career qualify as being washed up? Or was his speaking at the RNC the only qualifier? I would challenge the author to lay similar claim to any elderly member of the hollywood elite espousing liberal views, such as Betty White, who was petitioned to speak at the 2012 DNC. Does your critical thinking tell you that Mrs. White is all washed up too? Or is it only the elderly who associate themselves with the other group?
Perhaps this author should find her inner conviction and vote for it. If that means casting a vote for Ron Paul because you believe that his economic policies are best for America then exercise that critical thinking at the ballot box. Yet, tragically the odds of that happening are slim. Through fear, both parties fall short of nothing to paint apocalyptic outcomes if a Republican or Democrat wins, causing most wannabe Ron Paul voters to lose faith in their convictions for fear of throwing away their vote. Is that a proper exercise in critical thinking? Or is it being chased around by fear? Critical thinking without inner conviction is a waste.
It would seem that in 2012 the ideological split between parties could not be greater. Having not lived through “politics past” it could be a lively subject of debate, yet it is highly doubtful that 2012 will rise to the level of the Burr – Hamilton duel, or the violent political assassinations witnessed by our parents during the 1960’s.
Perhaps the problem is that everyone, as described by the author, has their “crap detector” set on maximum thus disallowing the very virtue the author is purporting by agreeing to disagree. That very tenet has drawn rigid ideological lines in Washington as partisanship has fully agreed to disagree at the expense of all Americans. I would argue that isn’t the problem. The problem goes to the core of a two party system, a political construct devised by a majority of the people, that has replaced “compromise” with “shutdown” as designed by the constitution. How is it designed? To prevent one party from implementing a perceived radical agenda onto all Americans, thus placing the Republic at risk of dramatically changing overnight. While the purpose of our constitution is interpreted differently by both sides, both sides believe in three equal branches of government, with no single branch exercising authority over the other two. And that, my dear author, keeps the dictators at bay.