It strikes me that every wrongheaded sentiment in society ultimately derives from the culture of inherent, unconditional rightness. As I grow older, I find myself less prone to have an opinion about anything, and to distrust just about anyone who does…. I refuse to discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-life or pro-choice; I refuse to discuss affirmative action with any unemployed white guy or any unemployed black guy. All the world’s stupidest people are either zealots or atheists. If you want to truly deduce how intelligent someone is, just ask this person how they feel about any issue that doesn’t have an answer; the more certainty they express, the less sense they have. This is because certainty only comes form dogma.

From the book, Chuck Klosterman IV.

I don’t mean to pick on Chuck Klosterman, who is a hip music critic and essayist on mundane cultural minutiae and doesn’t claim to be a political commentator. I wanted to write about this because it’s such a common sentiment, and this was the closest example at hand, since it’s a book I happen to be reading.

Certainty, though it isn’t the word I would choose, since I think it’s generally a good idea to remain open to the possibility that one could be wrong, doesn’t only come from dogma, it also comes from knowledge. Having an opinion is only foolish if it’s an uninformed opinion. And while abstaining from forming an opinion because one is insufficiently informed is laudable, and rare, taking the time to learn the facts underlying an issue so that one can come up with an educated opinion is much more laudable — and responsible, as a citizen of the world — than simply choosing ignorance.

I can’t count how many times I’ve come across the belief that a reasonable person’s duty is to consider both sides of a political or social issue — and the assumption is nearly always that every issue only has two sides — and then stop there, refraining from coming to any conclusion. Anyone who does otherwise is “biased.” Nowhere in this belief is there an acknowledgment that facts are involved, because facts are considered unknowable and therefore suspect. I was talking to someone not long ago who is training to become a social studies teacher, and this is what she said is expected of her in the classroom: teach “both sides” and step back.

Facts may not be easy to ascertain. It takes work to dig them up, and enough background knowledge and understanding of the issues to distinguish them from half-truths and propaganda. One can be misled by facts that are presented in a particular light, and one may have to revise one’s understanding as one learns more information. But facts do exist, bizarre as it is to have to say it.

Listening to self-interested lies coming from various corners, however, is not going to take one any closer to learning facts. Hearing both sides, or any of various sides, of an issue is only useful in trying to understand why different factions hold the positions that they do: it’s not a particularly useful way to figure out where the truth lies. Basing one’s opinion on someone else’s opinion is actually the wrong thing to do if one is interested in being fair-minded.

Yet opinion is virtually all of the media coverage that is available on important political issues. There’s the bombastic opinion of the right, which is delivered with a loudness that’s meant to drown out all other thought, and the apologetic, mildly worded opinion of the center-left, that’s always stumbling over itself in an effort not to offend. Politicians that are mildly left-leaning are accepted by the media, and by extension the public, only when they promise to build bridges and unite opposing viewpoints. Personally, I’m not interested in the building of bridges with liars and demagogues whose aims are to oppress the many and create prosperity for the few. Greed and self interest need to be exposed, not coddled. But if you start out with the premise that the fair-minded embrace all points of view equally, and that insisting on facts and forming strong opinions according to one’s knowledge of the facts makes one strident, that’s what you get: the politics of mildness and inoffensiveness, which are offered up as the only possible antidote to the politics of unbridled rapaciousness.