Critical Thinking and the American Political System

So when is the last time you associated the term critical thinking with an American politician?  Critical thinking is one of the most important callings for higher education, right?  And if we were to consider the educational background of our politicians, as a group they are certainly highly educated as compared to the rest of the population.  So might one surmise that since there are a large number of highly educated politicians that this would translate into a lot of critical thinking?

Hmmm, . . . I suspect you would agree that politicians are most certainly the recipients of a great deal of critical exposition!  Yes, Congress has the lowest favorability ratings since the Stone Age (or more accurately, the 1960s).  So what gives, why are politicians held in such low esteem if indeed they are highly trained critical thinkers?

Perhaps an example comes into play.  Consider the use of the active versus passive voices in our written documents.  Academia advocates, with rare exception, that the active voice is the way to go.  It is more to the point, more concise, more clear.  But think about it, when was the last time you heard a politician use the active voice?  Let’s bring this into focus with an example; we’ll use a quiz question to press the point.

Select one of the following two statements that you believe would most likely be made by a politician: 

a)      I believe our debt crisis must be resolved through a combination of tax increases and service cuts, or

b)      Tax increases and service cuts must be used to reduce the debt crises.

Yes, the politician would more than likely choose option “b.”  Using the passive voice is so great when you want to muddy the water, avoid blame, and offer a long-winded pronouncement that keeps things nice and vague. 

So what is the learning point from this conversation?  Perhaps it is that our environments can impact how some of the tools gained from our college educations are actually used in the workplace.  It is not only the politician who has mastered the use of the passive voice, but it is the federal bureaucrat as well.  Avoiding the use of the active voice has been used as a shield for many years by a remarkable number of federal employees.  Perhaps partly in response to this disparity between the public’s expectation for clear language and their reality when engaging the bureaucracy, President Obama signed the Plain Writing Act of 2010.  This law requires that federal agencies use "clear Government communication that the public can understand and use."  So will the American political system successfully navigate the rocky shoals of intransigence that resides in many federal agencies?  We will see, but perhaps most telling will be the role the trainers of this new federal law take in facilitating not only the skill but also the human and organizational infrastructure to support this change effort.  The purpose of education and training should therefore be more than the acquisition of learning, it should also focus on learning outcomes as a part of meeting the strategic goals of public policy.