Critical Thinking in a Democracy
We Americans are blessed in that we are participants in the greatest experiment in democratic living ever to exist on planet earth. Citizenship in this marvelous venture comes with a cost. That cost is that we are periodically obligated to take part in our democracy by voting. Beyond simply voting, however, we have a duty to think critically about the issues on which we vote. In our world of instant communication, where media are motivated by the bottom line rather than objectivity, and where political candidates are managed by experts with Machiavellian motivations, critical thinking is no easy task.
Critical thinking is the process of analyzing claims while maintaining intellectual humility and fair-mindedness. This can be done in three steps:
Step one
Make sure the claim is clear and unambiguous. One of the tricks of propagandists and political persuaders is to design a claim which cannot be pinned down. When this happens, critical thinkers must determine just what claim is being made. Exactly what is the candidate claiming? Without a specific claim, no critical analysis can be made.
Step two
Examine the evidence offered in support of the claim. In political communication, many claims are made without evidence to support them. When this happens critical thinkers assign the claim to the unproven opinion category. Critical thinkers don’t say such claims are false, simply unproven.
Evidence in support of a claim might be facts, authoritative and unbiased testimony, and sometimes an analogy. Facts are the key to critical thinking. Ronald Reagan famously said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Indeed they are. Facts should never be in doubt for critical thinkers. To be considered facts, they must have been observed directly or have been reported by an unbiased and knowledgeable source. The predominant problem with all political communication is that it almost always makes a radically biased selection of the facts reported. Political communicators present only the facts that support their claims. For every controversial issue there are facts supporting all sides of the issue. If this were not true, there would be no controversy. Critical thinkers aggressively insist on all the facts before attempting an analysis.
Step Three
Consider the relationship of the evidence to the candidate’s claim. Often candidates make a claim, then offer evidence that only supports that claim in a most superficial or indirect manner. Critical thinkers answer the question, “How directly does the evidence offered support the claim made?”
Critical thinkers know that no argument can prove a controversial claim beyond all doubt. What is the best policy to combat terrorism? What shall we do about illegal immigration? What is the best plan to deal with Iraq? Even the best critical thinkers cannot answer these questions with certainty. Critical thinking can only help us find the answer that has the best chance of success. Nevertheless, as citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to make the decision. In this election there is a choice. If we don’t make it, someone else will. I plan to have my voice heard. How about you?