Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Three Tips For Some Honest Debate

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

In a democracy, it is very important that citizens base their views and their votes on reality, on facts, and on the truth.  Unfortunately, the truth can be very hard to find amid the lying, smearing, and shouting.  Many people are so swept away by emotions, wishful thinking, and the idea of “my team right or wrong” that they are not demanding proof or a statement of the facts.  This is a very dangerous situation, because people whose views are not solidly grounded in the truth can be swayed very easily and can become like a lynch mob or a bunch of lemmings running off a cliff.

We need to encourage a vigorous debate on the issues, but that debate must be an honest debate, based on the truth, if it is to bear good fruit.  If we are willing to lie or “spin the truth” in order to trick others into supporting our position, or if we allow ourselves to be tricked or to be swept away by emotion, we will not reach a good result.  We have an obligation as citizens to demand the facts and to base our own views on a logical, rational interpretation of those facts. 

Here are three tips to help us do our job as citizens:

*Trust but verify. 

We need to follow the approach President Reagan used with the Soviet Union – “trust but verify”.  While we may consider certain people to be trustworthy, we also need to know the facts so we can see whether their analysis makes sense to us in each situation.  Even trustworthy people make mistakes!  If the people who are trying to persuade us are making the issues seem very complex, suggesting that we cannot understand them and just need to trust them, then we ought to consider that they may be hiding behind that complexity and using it as a smokescreen to avoid telling us the truth.  Most issues and facts can be laid out in a pretty simple, straightforward way if the “persuaders” really want to give us the straight scoop.    

For example, it was very healthy when conservatives took the “trust but verify” approach and refused to trust President Bush on the Miers nomination, demanding that he appoint someone with a proven track record.  Some people considered it bad or disloyal for conservatives to disagree with the President, but the real disloyalty would have been for them to go along with a questionable appointment.

*Be suspicious of smears.

If people engage in personal attacks and smear campaigns, it is probably because their position is not supported by facts and logic. If they had the facts and logic on their side, they would be using them instead.  So, when we see people engaging in personal attacks and smears with little or no factual foundation, it should raise a red flag for us, and we should suspect the smearer more than the person being smeared.  

For example, the Democrats currently are engaging in a smear campaign, calling President Bush a liar, and saying that he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and misled the country into war.  Before the war, they had access to the same intelligence information as the President, and they voted to authorize the President to go to war.  If they now want to call the President a liar, they need to lay out the facts to make their case.  Otherwise, we should be even more suspicious of them than of the President.

*Don’t be afraid of a challenge based on the facts.

          If we are going to base our views on reality, then we have to be willing to test new theories.  Otherwise, we would still believe that the earth is flat, and we would still have many women and babies dying just because the doctor didn’t wash his hands between deliveries.  If something is true, then it will withstand a challenge; if not, then we should want to learn more about the subject so we will know the truth.

          For example, the recent debate about evolution and whether life evolved by random chance or by “intelligent design” is a challenge to the accepted theory of random evolution.  This question needs to be handled by scientific method – not by smear and spin.  Those who support real science and seek the truth should not be upset by such a question and should not allow their religious views to cause them to dismiss the challengers as being knuckle-dragging nut cases. Now that we are able to map DNA, we have tools that were not available in the past.  We should use those tools, study the pattern of the evolution of life, and see whether or not it is supported by the theory of random chance.  If evolution was not random, then the current theory will need to be revised.  A serious, respectful, scientific study of the facts can help us understand our world better.    

We see similar problems in debates about “global warming”, free trade, the price of gasoline, and many other issues.  There is far too much hype and emotion and far too little willingness to consider the facts when someone challenges the “accepted view”.  Often the problem is not the things we don’t know but rather the things we think we know that just aren’t so!

We deserve better than sound bites, spin, and selective reporting -- we deserve the truth, and we should strive to get it.  We should tell the politicians, the news media, and the talking heads that we are sick and tired of the spinning, the smearing, the shouting, and the personal attacks.  We should demand the plain facts, the evidence, and the analysis, and we should support those who provide them to us and shun, eject, or vote out of office those who don’t. 

"'Trust-me' government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man, that we trust him to do what's best for us.

My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties." ---Ronald Reagan

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN