American Intelligence Test: When Did Reasoning and Logic Become Un-American?

Polarization has always been an aspect of America’s democracy if for no other reason than it’s unrealistic to imagine people with different interests, beliefs and goals to align on how a nation should proceed. It may be more accurate to state that the nation has occasionally coalesced around a common outlook for brief periods but spent most of its history struggling with issues that pitted one group against another. This is a just the way that a society works, competing interests seeking resolutions that accommodate their own disparate interests.

So, while polarization, divisiveness, and discord are to be expected there isn’t a rationale value in promoting and depending upon the polarization to just achieve political goals that don’t serve the interests of the nation. Now if we had competent politicians this would not be as meaningful an issue; however, when was the last time that those two terms were appropriately paired?

This presents an opportunity to test the soundness of the reasoning and logic that are used by the public or at least in many cases presented to the public by politicians in assessing and answering questions and dealing with issues. Some of the questions contain statements that reflect ‘popular’ phrases used to justify actions, to claim credit for events, and to assign blame for other events. The test is to look at the reasoning and logic that supports or disputes the soundness and quality of intelligence that’s behind the espoused positions, policies or pronouncements.

Question A:   Is it true that “If the President succeeds then the nation will succeed?”

(1). Yes, it’s true.

(2). No, it’s false.

(3). This is not a question that is answered as either True or False.

Answer - A:  2. No

Rationale - A:      The assertion is false. Its falseness is easily obscured and overlooked. This is because the elements that make it false are embedded in the meaning of simple phrases that while matching an “If A then B” proposition don’t have to follow from valid assumptions.

Consider, what does ‘succeed’ mean for the President, and for the nation; and then assess whether success is the same for both or needs to be the same for both. And if it’s not the same for both, why does one proceed from the other? This doesn’t mean that there are no cases where ‘success’ is the same both and the statement would be true. But if there are some cases that are not the same for both, then why is it true that “A” occurring means “B” occurs?

Now consider, as an example, what the President succeeding means if the President wants to reform the financial system and accomplishes that reform. The President has ‘succeeded’ (doing what was promised). Does that mean that the consequences of the financial system reform will be ‘successful’? History would inform us that this is not true. Presidents have acted to ‘fix’ the financial system when the nation has experienced issues before and the record doesn’t always prove that their ‘success’ was good for the nation.

It seems more reasonable that the requirement for ‘success’ is dependent upon a reasoned policy and implementation that includes specified costs and benefits which must be delivered before the state of ‘success’ is attributed. Until the results are in, and as projected, there is no ‘success’ for either.
 

Question B:   Would it be true that “If the nation succeeds then the President succeeds?”

(1). Yes

(2). No

(3). This is not a question that is answered as either True or False.

Answer - B:  2. No

Rationale - B:      As in Question A, the meaning of ‘success’ isn’t self-evident nor is there a ‘law of physics’ requirement that the state of the nation’s achievement and progress that it must be tied directly to the state of the Executive’s efficacy. The

The economy can expand and grow even when taxes are raised. If cutting taxes can also expand the economy which is the trigger for success, and which President is ‘successful’ because of their tax policy? Now reverse the outcome for each. Which is ‘successful’ now? Is the assertion of ‘cause and effect’ relationship between the nation and the president required? What prevents the case of a president failing and the nation succeeding?

The action of the President in these cases is a factor in the economy, but without a projection of the costs and benefits that result over a specified timeline that can be measured the success of a president isn’t predicated on their actions, it’s just a roll of the dice.

Question C:   Which of the following areas would be key to the nation “succeeding”?

(1). US Economy

(2). National Security

(3). Jobs

(4). Education

(5). Trade

(6). Infrastructure

(7). Energy

(8). Military

(9). Healthcare

(10). Commerce

Answer - C:  All the items are key to a nation’s “success” and there are significantly more areas than just those listed here.

Rationale - C:      The nation’s success is reflected in the state of its overall well-being. The nation isn’t dependent upon the President to do well, but it may be much more dependent upon the President to not do badly.

Some of these areas are directly the responsibility and domain of the President, others are to some degree influenced by policy, and some are beyond the practical influence that a President could impart. So, what does the ‘success’ of National Security, the Military or the Economy require for the President to be accountable for that success? Even in these direct responsibility areas it isn’t possible for success to be attributed to the President without that success measured against some base-line.

Question D:   For the areas designated as ‘key’ for the nation to succeed, what is required to determine that the nation has ‘succeeded’?

(1). A Political Party claims that the nation is better off than before the President was took office. [By extension, ‘failure’ would be logically that the nation is worse off.]

(2). Quantitative metrics and measurements on the state and level of a national area of importance that can be compared to historic information and to forecasted targets for this data.

(3). The various factors that define a nation’s interests should be prioritized and ranked, and, if there is improvement in the at least two-thirds of the top half then the nation is succeeding.

(4). Improvements in items like: increased percentage of people in the middle-class economic bracket, increased percentage of America’s wealth held by the lower 90% of population, an increased rate of jobs growth, an increase in wages, an increased level of spending on infrastructure, a more technologically modern military at a lower budgetary cost, a decrease in homicides per capita, lower deficit or positive trade imbalance, … .    In general, specific information that provides a comparative view of how the nation has changed.

(5). Congress will through its respective committees that oversee these areas issue a annual public status report that assesses the state of the area. There may need to be a separate majority and a minority report.

(6). There isn’t a means to determine if the nation has succeeded or not.

(7).  A nation’s success is the result of the composite actions of our citizens, businesses and political processes just as its failure would be. So, our success/failure is just an opinion poll.

Answer - D:  2 and 4

Rationale - D:      Items 2 and 4 are basically the same answer, which is that you have to have both some goals that you are seeking to achieve and you need to be able to assess where you are in the process of reaching those goals (i.e., the ability to measure quantitatively some progress toward your goals, or a way to validate that you have reached a state of accomplishing the goals).

Item 1 would require trusting the knowledge, skills and honesty of politicians, so this is a self-evident futile approach. Who would trust what a politician tell you?

Item 3 is an example of an approach to define how success might be measured but it assumes that success is only needed on a couple of ‘key’ areas which is illogical if they are all ‘key’ areas.

Item 5 presumes that Congress is an adequate judge of the nation’s success. This seems an obvious fallacy since if they could make the proper assessment than what would be preventing them from resolving national issues on their own, which they have aptly demonstrated that they cannot do.

Item 6 would imply that it can’t be done which doesn’t make sense since there are innumerable individuals and groups that make that assessment all the time.

Item 7 may be the most common manner in which the judgment is made; however it is vulnerable to the people who are polled not understanding the question, the issues, or the dimensions of the situation that they are being asked to assess.

Question E:    Does the condition of ‘success’ require a meaningful change in what was transpiring before and being quantified as better than it would have been if nothing had changed?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - E:  No

Rationale - E:      On a simplistic level, the nation could be in one of four “before and after” situations. The state of the nation would be either ‘succeeding’ or ‘failing’ before a given point, and the nation would then become either ‘successful’ or ‘failing’ after that point. So, in the two cases where the ‘after’ state is ‘failing’ there is no accomplishment that can be claimed of the nation ‘succeeding’.

In the case where the nation was already in a ‘success’ state then remaining in the ‘success’ state could be considered as ‘succeeding’ without any change; thus, change is not required though change can occur as long as it doesn’t force the state to a ‘failure’ state. This leaves the one state where a ‘better’ condition in the “after” situation is required to achieve a nation ‘succeeding’.

The last state requires that you have defined the initial state as ‘failing’, which should require appropriate base-line data that can be used to demonstrate progress toward a ‘better’ condition.

Question F:    Can ‘success’ be nothing more than holding the course?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      As noted in Question E as long as you recognize the ‘before’ state as ‘successful’ then the ‘after’ state can be called ‘successful’ as long as it doesn’t render the state of the nation into a worse condition.

Question G:   If a President fails does that mean that the nation also fails?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - G:  No

Rationale - G:     A President could have goals and objectives that are resisted by Congress, wrong for achieving a ‘successful’ state, or ineffective at accomplishing the goals; and the nation could still be evaluated as progressing toward a ‘better’ state than when the President’s administration began. This is comparable to Question A.

Question H:   When a politician says that “The American people voted for me because I promised to do ‘something’.” Does that mean that the public supports the ‘something’ that is being justified by the election?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - H:  No

Rationale - H:      Whether the public supports a politician’s position on a particular policy or issue would likely depend upon several factors, and whether they voted for the politician need not be one of them. All the voters for a given candidate are not uniform, mono-ideological, or even compatible with others who voted for the candidate; and those who didn’t vote for the politician are even less likely to support the politician’s policies.

Do those voters who voted against the other candidate, rather than for the politician that they help elect would it be sound reasoning and logic to conclude that they supported the candidate’s positions and views? If the candidate received a ‘protest’ vote would that group of the electorate agree with the candidate’s views or just be rejecting the candidate that they are protesting?

The assertion that the voters wanted the politician’s policies isn’t a logical proof. It’s a lie that helps the politician justify their action even though only fools would accept it.

Question I:      When you listen to elected officials and politicians, how do you know which side is telling you the truth when there are conflicting statements around the issue?

(1). They are a Democrat

(2). They are a Republican

(3). You are of the same Party as the politician

(4). They are a politician that you voted for

(5). The ‘main-stream’ media provides coverage that is consistent with the politician

(6). Members of your family agree with the politician

(7). The reasoning behind the position and the information and data on the issue can be validated independent of the politician

(8). You share the views, policies and positions expressed by the politician

(9). The media source that you prefer sides with the politician even though ‘main-stream’ media opposes the politician’s statements

(10). An authoritative person or body with expertise on the issue and unassociated with the politician or political party would have made the equivalent statement prior to the politician’s statement

(11). Officials of your religious affiliation support the politician’s statements

(12). You know when someone is telling the truth

Answer - I:  7 and 10

Rationale - I:        There is no guaranteed means to ‘know’, but items 7 and 10 are the basis for most forms of assessing the truth in a ‘knowledge-based’ society. It is how our sciences, technologies, businesses and understanding progress, and how we educate. Recognizing the ‘truth’ isn’t ‘believing’ in someone that you approve of. Recognizing the ‘truth’ is accepting that when you do not have the data, the experience or the training that you should seek someone(s) who does. It’s why you go to doctors when sick, to architects to design a building, to engineers to build infrastructure, to programmers to develop software, to a jurist to obtain justice, and thousands of other ‘knowledgeable’ skill-sets that we depend on for our nation to succeed. If you ‘pick’ your ‘truth’ the nation fails.

Item 5 is a good base to check your judgement against, but you can’t rely upon the media to be right or know the ‘truth’. However, if a politician is telling you that the media is wrong then it incumbent upon them to provide adequate information and reasoning that demonstrates why you should believe them.

The other items are just poor substitutes for intelligence.

Question J:    If a President decided to undertake a policy, program or project which falls within their Executive authority but that is ultimately harmful to the nation’s interests and that will not deliver the intended benefits/results either in the near-term or the long-term; who is supposed to oppose or prevent the effort from proceeding?

(1). No one. The President is in-charge and the nation expects them to make the decisions.

(2). Congress

(3). The President’s Cabinet

(4). Supreme Court

(5). Media

(6). The public

(7). The Administration’s department, agency and governmental heads

Answer - J:  All but item 1

Rationale - J:       The President is elected to serve the nation. They work for the citizenry and are responsible to the public. A President is not an unquestionable authority nor an unchallengeable one.

The method to question and challenge a President is part of our government’s foundation and is deeply embedded in our Constitution. Not only can any of these groups oppose a President’s decisions, some are duty bound to do so when the President is acting other than in the nation’s interests. The means to prevent a President’s action vary greatly, but they are available. The ‘separation of powers’ is a governmental structure that provides for that opposition. The media is intended to present the case to the public when the President is acting in questionable ways.

This is a part of our American tradition, of our democratic principles, and of our founding values. If we were good at electing politicians then why would the nation have had to suffer through so many bad public policies and immoral  positions?