Application

Now that it looks like we know who the two candidates/contenders/interlocutors will be for this November’s election, it’s time to start applying some of the ideas that have appeared on this blog over the last several months to actual political content (speeches, advertisements and the like).  So next up will be a bit of critical thinking analysis of one of the candidate’s stump speeches.

But before we go there I should point out that, unlike last election’s Undecidedman blog, this exercise is purely about using something we all have in common (a national election) to teach, learn about and apply various critical thinking skills.  The goal is not to come to a conclusion on which candidate to vote for, but to use one of the few experiences we all share as Americans to study a topic that struggles to find a home in traditional educational settings.

I mention this because one of the most important things you need to do to engage in this kind of activity is to embrace a Principle of Charity which requires you to actually take both sides in a political contest seriously. 

This is far easier said than done in a poll-tested and media-driven political age when political campaigns are informed far more by advertising and marketing techniques (branding – both positive and negative, targeted communications, demographic-driven decision-making) than by analysis of actual people or issues. 

As noted previously, most of us have pre-sorted ourselves into communities where genuine political disagreement is considered peculiar or profoundly uncomfortable.  And within these communities, we carefully filter our input, leveraging new technologies (notably cable or satellite TV and the Internet) to stream ourselves a steady diet of opinions we already agree with, coupled with pre-digested invective against those we don’t like.  Even the current affairs shelf of the bookstore (if you’re lucky enough to live near one) groan under the weight of ghost-written tomes by professional partisans who treat voters as market segments to be sold into.

More sinisterly, this same type of targeted marketing is the cornerstone of most professional campaigns.  To take one example, because I signed up on one of the candidate web sites during the last election, I ended up on the mailing list for one of the party’s congressional campaign committees who send me a steady stream of e-mails declaring that only I can stop the unceasing evil of the opposing party by writing an ongoing series of requested checks.  The notion that I would be appalled by such a transparent (and pathos-driven) appeal is irrelevant to the e-mail marketers sending out this spam since, as far as they’re concerned, I’m simply one of the millions of people who sit outside their anticipated 1.5% “hit rate.”

But to actually immerse yourself in a genuine political debate requires you to start with the Principle of Charity assumption that both candidates are reasonable and dedicated men who have things to say, arguments to present, and a genuine dedication to doing the right thing for the country.  Now even with this assumption as a starting point, we will likely find one candidate’s vision more compelling or their argument better presented than the other.  And since we need to make some decision as November rolls around, we will eventually need to choose a side in order to place our vote.

The alternative (especially if you knew years or decades ago how you would vote in this election, regardless of who the candidates are) is to spend the next 6-7 months creating justifications for a decision that’s already been made and calling that political deliberation.  This is actually the easiest option which both candidates (and their scientifically managed campaigns) fully support, so long as you do your thing in a state they can take for granted, allowing them to focus their resources and attention elsewhere (i.e., ignore you). 

The downside of such an approach is that it leaves you totally irrelevant as a political actor, letting you hole up in a sorted community, trading news about your preferred candidate’s virtues (or, more frequently, the vices and weirdness of his opponent) with the like-minded and awaiting orders from on high regarding where to send your money (since your vote is already taken for granted). 

The Principle of Charity offers an alternative (but equally simple) filtering mechanism.  For example, would Romney supporters be freaked out if their candidate spent his childhood abroad and was the product of elite American universities (as was Obama)?  If not, then this is not a genuine issue.  Similarly, are Obama supporters as curious about the hijinks their candidates participated in during his youth as they are regarding Romney’s high school behavior?  If not, this too can be put aside as we treat both candidates (and ourselves) as adults ready to use our full freedom (including freedom of thought) to make an informed decision – the most important one we will all make this year.