For instance, the curious connection between COVID and the Ukraine war. Two superficially wildly dissimilar topics, and for good measure let me add climate change for an apparent trifecta of disconnection. But weirdly, if I know where you stand on any, I have a pretty good idea where you stand on all. And the connection, which whether valid or not should be examined carefully by all concerned, is a degree of skepticism or deference to received wisdom that is getting way out of hand.
There are exceptions. I know. I’m one. I support aid to Ukraine while abhorring pandemic overreaction and babble about “carbon pollution.” Ideas are complex and subtle, and as revisionist Marxist Edouard Berstein may once have said, though I’ve never been able to track down the reference, “Men have heads.”
The crucial point being we can think about things. So if he didn’t say it, he missed a splendid opportunity. As many miss the splendid opportunity to think. And let me illustrate with three broad positions that a person with a functioning brain, both calculating apparatus and conscience, could surely hold on Ukraine.
One: aggression anywhere threatens peace everywhere and we must support Ukraine by any means possible. Two: aggression anywhere threatens peace everywhere, but because of external circumstances or internal failings, we can’t help Ukraine much. Three: aggression is sometimes just foreigners killing each other for reasons that don’t concern us and neither does the outcome, including here, as sad as we may feel for the innocent victims who lose their lives in the conflict.
If you go back through history examining lapsed quarrels, you’ll often be puzzled at what they were arguing about and the angrily uncomprehending way they argued before coming to blows. But the recent White House Ukraine contretemps, with both sides exuding a savage sense of vindication, isn’t helping us reason together either. How can we do better?
Here’s where COVID and climate return, in case you were wondering where they’d gotten to. Because a significant section of the engaged public throughout the Western world has lost faith in the judgment and character of “the Establishment,” to the point that they try to save time and effort by disbelieving anything elite institutions say, especially if it includes scorning dissent. And to a startling degree, the Establishment has also lost faith in the people.
There is truth, of course, and error. But please remember in all humility that while we can’t all be right in these or any quarrels, we can all be wrong. Or as my friend Danny Hozack says, “When you’re arguing with a fool, make sure he isn’t too.”
So on our current ideological trio, those in power need more humility. They blundered by shooshing the COVID origin lab-leak theory, the immense collateral damage of locking down healthy people facing minimal risk, and the hazards of untested mRNA vaccines, especially in such a heavy-handed and -tongued way. As on the non-existent massive scientific consensus on a man-made global warming crisis, especially given their parallel insistence that the “settled” science gets scarier every day. And they should be able to concede that Ukraine in 2025 is not Britain in 1940 in important ways.
Meanwhile for dissenters from these orthodoxies, the starting point is never to attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by folly, and admit that even snobs sometimes have a point. And then concede that some quack cures for COVID were quackery. And most vaccines are a good idea. And climate alarmists may be wrong, but they do have a case that needs answering, particularly regarding the late 20th century. And Ukraine might be a flawed but vital ally in a difficult but important conflict.
The goal here isn’t paralysis through analysis. If you can’t reach a conclusion, it’s not successful thought. But thinking means taking your debating adversary’s ideas seriously, and your own, including tacit connections that might need pondering and perhaps severing.
These things are extremely powerful, for good and evil. Handle them with care.
