I wrote a column over the weekend called “FEMA Truth.” I posted it to both LinkedIn and Facebook. As of this morning on LinkedIn, the post has received 179 “likes,” 45 comments, 62 reposts, reached 23,806 impressions, and reached 13,084 members. In all of that, the only comment that was not positive came from someone who chose to repost it who commented, “Not the worst take I have seen, although it ignores some obvious truths and trends that need to be addressed. Some good, some bad…” There was no explanation of what I ignored, which parts were good nor which parts were bad. And I am fine with that. Explanations are not owed to me and the comment may help people to pause and think through it for themselves.
On Facebook it is a little more difficult to track all the numbers from other reposts and their comments, but from what I can see on my page, it received 63 likes, 28 comments, and 77 shares. Only one commenter was negative. Her first comment applied the tactic of the red herring fallacy. That is when someone attempts to change the subject and divert attention from the original issue. In other words, a seemingly solid but ultimately irrelevant argument is introduced into the discussion, either on purpose or by mistake.
My post explained that FEMA does not create or promote permits, but rather simply adheres to laws. She sent me a clipping of the FEMA employee who was fired for avoiding homes that supported Trump and said “So did this happen or not? Seems like weaponizing the government to me??” As I share this and what follows, please keep in mind that I am not divulging a private conversation. I would not do that. But she came to my page to have this public discourse and it is essential to share to establish my upcoming point. I have had conversations with Trump supporters in private DMs and I have kept them private.
I could have responded by pointing out that her point had absolutely nothing to do with mine. But truth has nothing to hide. Truth has value. So I willingly went to her topic and responded. I said, “That did happen and I publicly denounced it at the time. Your turn. And she was rightly and quickly fired for her deplorable actions. That’s what good institutions do.”
I probably could have been more clear, but I meant to suggest it was her turn to denounce what Trump had did wrong. It was an opportunity for her to return truth. She replied with, “I don’t recall Trump being President at the time. Where was Biden in all of this? I just think Trump is a better President and you loathe him. It’s just a moot point between us.”
I actually do not loathe Trump. I don’t loathe or hate anyone. In fact, my daughters are allowed to swear in my home, but I do not condone those words being applied to anyone. I wish Trump all the happiness in the world on a golf course. And as our President, I pray for President Trump to do good thing for every member of our country and the world.
I thought it might help if I was more direct. I asked, “Are you capable of saying Trump should not have released the J6ers who attacked police?”
Her reply, which ended the conversation, was simply “Dan Stoneking you don’t know me at all.”
Um, okay.
The feedback to my LinkedIn and Facebook reinforce two things for me. Respectively, that truth is valued and critical thinking is essential.
Truth
Truth is valued. Truth is humble and bold all at the same time. I suggest that we not only value truth, but value truth above politics. It’s worth sharing what some folks have said about truth.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin’ away. Elvis Presley
If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything. Mark Twain
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth. Buddha
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. Abraham Lincoln
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. George Washington
Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. Emily Dickinson
Facts are stubborn things. Ronald Reagan
I think the positive response to my FEMA column is that people found truth refreshing.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is essential to get to truth. Critical thinking is the process of analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting information to form a judgment. It involves making connections between ideas to see the bigger picture.
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
Okay. Let’s simplify. If you think your parents have never made a mistake, you are not a critical thinker. If you don’t think your coach has ever called a bad play, you are not a critical thinker. And, yes, you saw this coming. If you do not think your President is ever wrong, respectfully, you are not a critical thinker. When things are unilaterally all one thing or the other, your brain is acting with no more intellect than a light switch, on or off.
I admitted in the previous example that a FEMA supervisor did wrong. I can go far beyond that.
I have been both a Republican and a Democrat. At times I thought I might be a Liberal, but I do not fit the trope fully and sufficiently. I am a Moderate registered as a Democrat. I am also a critical thinker. And I can apply that to the Presidency. Keep in mind that in this section I am sharing my opinion, based on critical thinking. These are also just a few examples to make a point and not all-inclusive.
President Clinton. I supported that he got funding for 100,000 new police officers nationwide. I liked that he signed the 1993 Brady Bill requiring a waiting period and background check to purchase handguns. I complete abhor not only his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, but also his lack of transparency about it as well.
President G. W. Bush. I like what he did at the time with the No Child Left Behind Act, along with his efforts to cut taxes. I was disappointed that he let the narrative on the war and Iraq become only about finding WMD’s. At the time, he and Congress listed eight different reasons, but allowed the rest to be forgotten.
President Obama. I like what he tried to do with the Affordable Care Act, though I wish he would have done more to bring down the cost of prescriptions. I also supported Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010. However, I feel he worked against Republicans and did not try to work together, beginning the greater divide between parties. I believe that he could have been more aggressive in our nation’s response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I was also disappointed that he did not do more to improve race relations.
President Trump (45). I think he deserves credit for low unemployment rates and creation of jobs and that he doubled the child tax credit. I think he did a horrible job responding to COVID, to include the original naïve slogan of “15 days to stop/slow the spread.” I hold him accountable for hate crimes rising 28% during his term. And his passive and active actions on Jan 6 were criminal.
President Biden. I appreciate his impact on the economy, the largest climate investment in history, negotiating drug prices, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I believe he was painfully weak on dealing with the Israel-Hamas war. I think it was wrong of him to pardon his son.
Please pause for a second here. You can debate any of these opinions, but as most of them are in the past, and they are not the point of the column, I would prefer you not take up our time and energy with that. They are my opinions alone. And I respect yours. But what you have to acknowledge is that I am able to evaluate politicians, whether I voted for them or not, and come to my own conclusions on individual issues that sometimes are favorable and other times are not.
And, I am open-minded to having my mind changed.
That is what critical thinkers do.
Conclusion
Here is what I propose and seek. This is the part I welcome you to debate if you disagree.
- I think that we – all of us – regardless of who we voted for, should value truth.
- I think we should all demonstrate the moral courage and intellect to be critical thinkers and be able to acknowledge good work of the other party and disagree with bad decisions within our own party.
Stoneking Strategic Communications (SSC) 