Professor: current administration lacks simple critical thinking skills
Editor:
As a college professor, I am frequently expected to assess the critical thinking skills of my students as well as their ability to accurately reflect the opinions of others. Having followed this year’s presidential campaign closely, I’m bound to say that I have no difficulty understanding why President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have reacted so nervously to Senator Kerry’s assertion that the United States should pass an international test before going to war – an assertion consistent with American foreign policy throughout its history. Based on their campaign ads and their showing in the recent debates, neither of them could pass a simple test on critical thinking and verbal comprehension. The vice-presidential debate held Oct. 5 was a case in point. The unwillingness of anyone in the present administration to admit a mistake (as in NO weapons of mass destruction, NO celebratory response from Iraqis, NO capture of Osama bin Laden, NO connection between Sadam Hussein and the infamous events of 9/11, NO exit strategy, etc.) approaches a level of irrationality seldom encountered at the highest levels of government. The last time was during the administration of another resolute Republican, Richard M. Nixon. Both Kerry and Bush believe that the spread of democracy is the best strategy for defeating terrorism; but while the latter seeks to lead by example and statesmanship, the former seems to believe that democracy can be imposed by force from the barrel of an assault rifle.
Cheney reiterated in the debate that despite mounting evidence that Bush’s Iraq policy was premised on a false reading of inconclusive and inaccurate information, he would in retrospect recommend exactly the same course of action. Bush affirmed this remarkable example of hubris in last night’s second debate between the presidential candidates. Recent polls show that a majority of Bush/Cheney supporters claim that they want their candidates to pursue a different course in the future. I have just two words for these deluded individuals – “Fat chance!” The Republican ticket’s obstinate refusal to be persuaded by the evidence does not attest to the strong leadership of the current administration but to its inflexibility, arrogance and frightening lack of pragmatism. Incidentally, I would suggest “Four Poor Years” as a more appropriate campaign slogan for the Bush/Cheney ticket. When it comes to a choice, I’ll take the thoughtful flip-flopper over the resolute fanatic every time. Fortunately, that is not the choice before the American public. As the first presidential debate clearly demonstrated, Kerry’s alleged lack of conviction is just another groundless piece of campaign propaganda.
Consider the President’s remarkable record of flip-flopping on Iraq: (1) We went to war to destroy Hussein’s arsenal of non-existent weapons, 2) We went to war in order to “liberate Iraqis who are now poised on the brink of civil war,” 3) We went to war to stop terrorism, thus allowing bin Laden to escape and provoking the Muslim world into sympathizing with his terrorist cause, and most recently 4) We went to war because someday Hussein would have posed an immanent threat. Though some wars may be necessary, all war is undemocratic in that war itself fosters the very climate of fear, secrecy and fanaticism that democracy is designed to prevent. I, for one, plan to vote for the ticket that offers the best hope of empowering men and women who understand this. Obviously, the current administration does not.
Sincerely yours,
Greg Pepetone
GC&SU Professor of Music
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Oct 15 2004. Filed under Opinion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
