Scanning the headlines presents us with new scandals each and every day, leaving us divided and distrustful. From Watergate to Biden’s recent Autopen scandal, political controversies have multiplied. Each scandal is framed as catastrophic by one side and dismissed by the other. This distorts not only the scandals, but societal debates as well. Yet if we embrace critical thinking and constructive dialogue, we can cut through the noise and restore clarity to our discourse.
We have seen an increase in frequency and intensity of political scandals that have eroded public trust. Bill Clinton’s indiscretions sparked national outrage. George W. Bush’s tenure saw controversy over weapons of mass destruction and faulty intelligence concerning the Iraq War. Under Barack Obama we saw the Benghazi attack and NSA’s PRISM surveillance program, which raised questions about transparency and accountability. Joe Biden’s administration set new levels of corruption and incompetence with the Afghanistan withdrawal, the COVID “vaccine” mandates, the Autopen scandal, and now the questions concerning his cancer diagnosis.
A common thread runs through all these scandals: polarized reactions. One side calls it a crisis, whereas the other deems it a mere distraction. Michael Anton calls this “The Celebration Parallax” — “The same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it.” Take Hunter Biden’s laptop, for example. To critics, it showed influence-peddling, whereas to supporters, it was a smear. Social media and partisan outlets turn every issue into a combat zone. This prevents us from evaluating situations objectively as loyalty trumps evidence. When we filter facts through ideological lenses, it becomes nearly impossible to reach a shared understanding.
This polarization is extending beyond politics into societal debates. Concepts that used to be common knowledge are now being debated as if they were brand new ideas. That’s bad enough, but it’s unfathomable that so many people who otherwise appear normal willingly embrace harmful ideas. For example, some school districts are presenting young children with books containing graphic pornography. Critics see this as a violation of parental rights and endangering the welfare of children, whereas supporters see it as promoting inclusivity. Some see open borders as humanitarian, whereas others see them as creating security risks. Those who willingly embrace ideas without questioning their impact reveal themselves as unable to think critically.
Soren Kierkegaard once said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” People may cling to defective ideas, possibly in order to align themselves with their social group or in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. This has led to a society where ideas that were once unthinkable, such as exposing young children to pornography, have become sources of conflict rather than common sense.
We must break this cycle. To do so, we as a society must prioritize critical thinking and honest dialogue. Thomas Sowell once suggested that we ask three questions: “Compared to what?,” “At what cost?,” and “What’s your evidence?” These encourage clear thinking. In immigration debates, for example, asking “What’s your evidence?” shifts the focus to objective data on economic impacts or neighborhood crime rather than idealistic issues. If we apply these questions to political scandals, such as the Afghanistan withdrawal, we can consider the objective humanitarian and military costs versus the partisan spin.
We should encourage teachers and families to teach and practice these skills. Classroom debates on troublesome issues can teach students to weigh evidence and respect differing views. Family discussions can encourage researching data, articulating ideas, and active listening. These can help build not just critical thinking, but also empathy and help to bridge divides.
Accountability is vital. Public figures must face unbiased scrutiny. If a leader breaks a law or violates trust, then the media or an unbiased legal system must respond predictably. The certainty of these consequences, not their severity, is what deters misconduct and rebuilds trust.
Our society is being overwhelmed by a cacophony of competing narratives. By applying Sowell’s questions, by engaging in respectful debate and demanding accountability, we can restore some semblance of clarity. We should start small: Question a headline or news report, discuss a policy with a friend, encourage your child to pick a side of an issue and debate it with you, and then switch sides. Teach yourself and your children to think critically rather than simply conforming to a narrative, even if you agree with it.
Our world has gotten very loud. We need clear thinking and honest conversations to move forward.
