Legal

President Trump has once again provided Americans with a real life scenario that normally only gets discussed in poli-sci classrooms.  Trump’s executive action to ban travel and/or refugees from 7 countries in the Middle East and Africa was met with much confusion upon implementation and then stiff resistance.  Immigration lawyers rushed to courtrooms,  judges issued late night injunctions,  and eventually the ninth circuit decided that the executive action should be put on hold until cases could be decided in court. These setbacks finally led to the president firing off some nasty tweets holding the Judiciary responsible for any potential terrorist activity.

On the surface it appears to be yet another instance of misunderstanding (or disliking)  checks and balances but to me it seems to be something that goes far deeper. It seems that many Americans and the politicians who represent them don’t grasp the difference between something being legal (or constitutional) and being good policy.

Those who follow N.C. politics know that we have had more than our share of controversial legislative actions that have led to convoluted legal proceedings.  Three in particular deal with gerrymandering, advice and consent for the governor’s cabinet, and a battle between the State School Board and the Legislature over the powers of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Right

I am legally able to take my dog’s favorite toy and put it in a tree in the front yard but that doesn’t make it right. I’m also constitutionally allowed to raise my children to hate black people, Methodists, or cats but I’m sure few people would think that that’s good parenting. Since this is my blog and freedom of speech is constitutionally-protected I will tell you exactly how I feel about each of these four issues and why.

The travel ban, as originally written, was poorly conceived and botched on implementation but I do find it ironic that all of the hyperventilating liberals hating on executive actions had no problems with Obama’s actions favoring immigrants.  The issue I have with the ban is that it solves a problem that doesn’t really exist and in fact probably makes my children less safe by alienating Muslims already here legally.

As for the N.C. laws, they are also getting bogged down by wrangling over constitutional legalities with little discussion as to their merit.  The December actions of the State Legislature would have been humorous if they were not such an obvious political hack job and an overt announcement that the level of cooperation with the incoming governor would be nil. The timing (post-election but pre-inauguration) coupled with the fact that the original convening in Raleigh was meant to deal with hurricane disaster relief threw down the party line gauntlet.  

The gerrymandering business is the most disturbing to me personally because it represents a level of legalized corruption formerly only seen in Banana Republics (not the store) and Eastern Bloc dictatorships.  Claiming any level of legitimacy because lines were drawn based on party affiliation and not race carries no water in my book.  Elected officials from a party that only claims 31% of the state’s registered voters controlling district drawing for over 9 million residents is hogwash.  Yes Obama’s Department of Justice signed off on the maps but it’s also been the GOP stance that he got nothing right.  Curious indeed.

Listening to Reason

I seriously considered naming this post “Liberals who won’t listen talking to conservatives that can’t hear.”  It seems that we are constantly talking past each other, busy making our own political points, while never listening to what anyone who disagrees with us says.  We gather our ammunition from wellsprings of our own choosing be it Fox News, CNN, Breitbart, The Drudge Report, or any of another thousand locations for “news and information” and then assault or fellow Facebookers with our own Constitutional interpretations.  As we feverishly disseminate our opinions we can’t help but constantly wonder to ourselves, “Why can’t they get it? It’s so obvious.”

The reason that “they” just can’t get it is a mental habit that psychologists refer to as confirmation bias. We all suffer from varying degrees of confirmation bias and if you don’t believe that you do just consider the curious case of Grayson Allen. If you think that Mr. Allen is the worst version of any human being, not just a basketball player, then you are probably a Carolina fan. If he is a young man who has made some mistakes and has been properly punished and is receiving undue notoriety and negative press then you are probably a Duke fan. If you wonder why the Pack can’t seem to throw it in the ocean in overtime I will come up with an example for you some other time.

When presented with any evidence, whatever the source, our brains tend to follow the same pattern.  If it agrees with an already held notion then it only serves to reinforce what we believed. If it disagrees with our previously held beliefs then we simply dismiss or ignore it as uninformed or unimportant.  Fortunately, or unfortunately, this seems to be a prevalent attitude amongst political followers of all stripes.

Fact vs. Truth

Many of the more liberal tree-hugging types who are concerned about global food supplies refuse to accept that there is no scientific evidence pointing to a lack of safety with genetically modified crops. “Frankenfoods” are dangerous and only time will tell when a study finally proves their long and firmly held beliefs.  My grandmother felt the same way about microwave ovens.

Millions of conservatives would rather point to the 5% of scientists that don’t believe in global warming or at least man’s contribution rather than the millions of scientists that do.  Satellite pictures of Greenland finally living up to it’s name are unconvincing because evidence clearly shows that over the course of thousands of years the earth’s temperature has fluctuated.  I was most impressed with the Congressman who brought the snowball into the House chambers to show the ridiculousness of global warming.  You can’t argue with that logic.

So how do we fix our own heads?  Well according to research by Charles Lord, the only solution is to systematically sort through the evidence and consider its value if it had produced results to the exact contrary.  This approach is the only way to overcome our own biases and it will require actual cognitive effort not just bumper sticker reasoning.  It also requires curiosity and a willingness to be proven wrong.  After all, those with the least imagination tend to be the most dogmatic.