Thursday, March 28, 2024 -
Print Edition

Don’t think

One cause of the corruption of our political discourse is the routinization of words or phrases that pass for reality but mask a malady: the absence of thought.

Three instances are “conspiracy theory,” “lie” and “systemic.” Many locutions reflect the absence of thought, but these three are particularly pernicious today.

Let us begin with “conspiracy theory.” As in, the claim that the origin of the coronavirus might have been in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

This was put forth in January, 2020, by Sen. Tom Cotton. China called this “absolutely crazy.” That’s to be expected. China is a communist country in which truth is forbidden and “don’t think” is a political requirement.

But here is what the Washington Post said of Cotton’s statement: “coronavirus conspiracy theory.” The New York Times said this: “fringe theory of coronavirus origins.”

Eighteen months later, President Joe Biden is calling for a thorough investigation of the possibility that the coronavirus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.

What happened to the “conspiracy theory”?

Does Biden’s (and Fauci’s and many others’) call for an investigation of the lab in Wuhan mean that Cotton was necessarily right? No, it doesn’t. It does mean this: In dismissing what Cotton said with the pejorative, “conspiracy theory” (or “fringe theory”), his political opponents were not thinking. They were name-calling. They were exacerbating division. They were corrupting political discourse.

This is what Cotton actually said: “I would note that Wuhan has China’s only biosafety level-four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Cotton did not say that the virus originated in the laboratory. He said it could have, and this was worth investigating.

Sounds rational to me.

When the response to Cotton is “conspiracy theory,” the intent is: Cotton is either dimwitted or reckless with the truth. By making this accusation, Cotton’s political opponents were really saying: We don’t evaluate points we don’t agree with. We don’t think.

Now, when a claim is dismissed as a “conspiracy theory,” the claim may be correct. History is riddled with conspiracy theories, from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the endless, supposed orchestrators of the Kennedy assassination. The term can be used accurately.

But here’s the point. These days, the term is invoked constantly to characterize a statement by a political opponent. This means that I will not attempt to discern the argument or evidence in the statement of my political opponent. That is, I won’t think. By saying, my opponent is not thinking (“he’s a conspiracy theorist”), I’m not thinking.

A similar, destructive dynamic is in play in the frequent charge that my political opponents “lie.” No doubt, politicians tell lies today, as many people always have. But here’s the point, overstated: When everything is a lie, nothing is a lie.

Put more carefully, when I think that a high percentage of what my political opponents say is a “lie,” then here too I do not attempt to discern the argument or evidence in his statement. I don’t think.

The word “lie” is thrown about in both directions, by Republicans about Democrats and by Democrats about Republicans. But each side assumes that it is only the other side that lies.

This corrupts not only public discourse but also reportage. The constant invocation of “lie” helps create “silo journalism,” the habit of reading or viewing only what I agree with. Here is the dynamic:

When I report that someone said that a political opponent “lied,” I quickly lose half of my readership (or viewership). By reporting, for instance, that a Republican lied, then the Republicans stop reading (or viewing) because, the way Republicans see it, only Democrats lie. So if someone reports that Republicans lie, this reporter is not worth reading.

The same dynamic comes into play if one reports that a Democrat lied. Because “everybody” knows that my side never lies, only the other side does. So why should I bother listening to any news source other than one I agree with? After all, the other news sources disrespect my preferred politicians by calling them liars.

Now look at “systemic.” As in “systemic racism.” “Systemic police brutality.” “Systemic poverty.” “Systemic incarceration.” The list goes on.

“Systemic,” like “conspiracy theory” and “lie,” stops discussion. The constant invocation of “systemic” means: I am thinking. I see the true scope of the problem. I know the reality. If you don’t agree that the problem is “systemic,” then you don’t see the true scope; you don’t know.

You don’t think.

But do I really know the true scope of the problem? “Systemic” is a very big word. It denotes an entire system in all its parts and places. Take, for example, the statement that police brutality is systemic. There are between 12,000 and 18,000 police departments in the US, depending on whether you count only local departments or also other agencies, such as state and federal police. To regard police brutality as “systemic” is to implicate at least 12,000 police departments! This is not a careful or accurate use of the word “systemic.”

One might object: So what if police brutality isn’t truly “systemic.” It is a huge problem. It isn’t addressed on the level it needs to be. So what if my term isn’t denotatively accurate? It gets the point across. And the point is . . . the point.

Here is the issue: By calling a problem “systemic,” that is, by making an absolutist claim that is unlikely on its face and impossible to verify without extensive research, I exaggerate. Exaggerations, except those meant in jest, tend to close off discussions and solutions, especially on sensitive topics.

What are alternatives to “conspiracy theory,” “lie” and “systemic?”

The alternative to “conspiracy theory” is either: I’ll look into what you say; or, you’re wrong on the following points for these reasons.

The alternative to “lie” is either: “without evidence,” “groundless,” “unverified,” etc.; or, you’re wrong on the following points for these reasons.

The alternative to “systemic” is “institutional,” as in limited to a given institution; a given police department, for example. That limitation can foster a manageable discussion based on a claim subject to verification or refutation.

The less exaggerated and more nuanced a term, the more likely the collaboration to find solutions. “Conspiracy theory,” “lie” and “systemic” preclude solutions.

Copyright © 2021 by the Intermountain Jewish News



Avatar photo

IJN Executive Editor | [email protected]


Leave a Reply