Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
As so often happens in our hyperpartisan political environment, members of Congress and their constituents use events of the day to re-enforce positions they already have.
A perfect example is the Ukrainian crisis that has heightened the debate between those who believe we need to increase oil production and those who believe we need a more environmentally sustainable energy policy that is less reliant on fossil fuel.
Of course it is not surprising that our elected representatives are using the crisis to craft arguments and cherry pick facts to support their respective positions on the issues of climate change and the need for more or less oil production in the United States.
Those members of Congress who for years have been supporting a stronger clean energy policy are using the Ukrainian crisis, and the threat of a Russian cut-off of oil to the West, as an example of why we need to increase our efforts for energy sustainability.
On the other hand, many Republican lawmakers are using the Russian invasion as an opportunity to criticize President Biden’s energy policies they claim have limited domestic production, urging him to step up production so we can wean ourselves of dependence on Russia.
Kevin Stitt, the Republican governor from Oklahoma recently said: “The recent events in Ukraine are yet another example of why we should be selling energy to our friends and not buying it from our enemies."
The debate has been fueled by the dramatic increase in oil prices resulting from Vladimir Putin’s escalating war on Ukraine. Benchmark crude oil jumped past $110 per barrel last week to the highest level since 2014 and politicians have used the dramatic increase to support whatever position they already had as to the solution, as opposed to reevaluating and adapting their initial position based on the new circumstances that have arisen.
Unfortunately, members of Congress are reluctant to think deductively, analyze multiple premises and come up with conclusions based on the facts as opposed to preconceived opinions. How else can you explain that, despite the considerable change that the Ukraine crisis portends on the energy supply-and-demand equation, there is no apparent desire to adapt positions.
There is no doubt that the desire to get elected subjects political aspirants to what is called motivation emotion, influencing their reasoning and judgment. Peter Ditto, a social psychologist at the University of California, Irvine who studies how motivation, emotion and intuition influence judgment, explains the phenomenon this say: "People are capable of being thoughtful and rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears and motivations often tip the scales to make us more likely to accept something as true if it supports what we want to believe."
The energy issue is of course complex and all the more reason that all of the relevant facts need to be considered to make a balanced decision. Is it too much to ask our leaders to stop allowing their ideology to undermine their ability to think critically? Admittedly it is not easy to access the facts. Recently the Financial Times stated:
“Not only does the crisis demonstrate our dependence on such regimes, giving them the ability to blackmail us, but we should also understand that our energy imports, in fact, bankroll the dangerous revisionist adventurism of the current government in Moscow.
“In addition to the all-important climate motivation, replacing imported gas with renewable energy is now a geopolitical priority.”
Yet at about the same time Auke Hoekstra, an expert on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, states that “700 studies (and # growing fast) of many researchers and research groups are now showing 100% [renewable energy] systems are possible and cost-effective.”
700 studies (and # growing fast) of many researchers and research groups are now showing 100% RE systems are possible and cost effective.\n\nDoesn't mean we *should* go for 100% RE. But pls grow up and acknowledge that we *could*.https://twitter.com/ChristianOnRE/status/1496193199597047811\u00a0\u2026— AukeHoekstra (@AukeHoekstra) 1645558076
Whatever your position is, on this issue or the other great issue that our country must address we need more from our elected officials. We need leaders who take full accountability for actions through a willingness to amend one's positions by seeking our current research and analysis, thus resulting in a more constructive approach to problem identification and solutions.
As a citizen we must demand more of ourselves and our leaders. While it is difficult to accept facts that challenge opinions and beliefs you already have, it is time we all do so.
An Independent Voter's Perspective on Current Political Divides
In the column, "Is Donald Trump Right?", Fulcrum Executive Editor, Hugo Balta, wrote:
For millions of Americans, President Trump’s second term isn’t a threat to democracy—it’s the fulfillment of a promise they believe was long overdue.
Is Donald Trump right?
Should the presidency serve as a force for disruption or a safeguard of preservation?
Balta invited readers to share their thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
David Levine from Portland, Oregon, shared these thoughts...
I am an independent voter who voted for Kamala Harris in the last election.
I pay very close attention to the events going on, and I try and avoid taking other people's opinions as fact, so the following writing should be looked at with that in mind:
Is Trump right? On some things, absolutely.
As to DEI, there is a strong feeling that you cannot fight racism with more racism or sexism with more sexism. Standards have to be the same across the board, and the idea that only white people can be racist is one that I think a lot of us find delusional on its face. The question is not whether we want equality in the workplace, but whether these systems are the mechanism to achieve it, despite their claims to virtue, and many of us feel they are not.
I think if the Democrats want to take back immigration as an issue then every single illegal alien no matter how they are discovered needs to be processed and sanctuary cities need to end, every single illegal alien needs to be found at that point Democrats could argue for an amnesty for those who have shown they have been Good actors for a period of time but the dynamic of simply ignoring those who break the law by coming here illegally is I think a losing issue for the Democrats, they need to bend the knee and make a deal.
I think you have to quit calling the man Hitler or a fascist because an actual fascist would simply shoot the protesters, the journalists, and anyone else who challenges him. And while he definitely has authoritarian tendencies, the Democrats are overplaying their hand using those words, and it makes them look foolish.
Most of us understand that the tariffs are a game of economic chicken, and whether it is successful or not depends on who blinks before the midterms. Still, the Democrats' continuous attacks on the man make them look disloyal to the country, not to Trump.
Referring to any group of people as marginalized is to many of us the same as referring to them as lesser, and it seems racist and insulting.
We invite you to read the opinions of other Fulrum Readers:
Trump's Policies: A Threat to Farmers and American Values
The Trump Era: A Bitter Pill for American Renewal
Federal Hill's Warning: A Baltimorean's Reflection on Leadership
Also, check out "Is Donald Trump Right?" and consider accepting Hugo's invitation to share your thoughts at newsroom@fulcrum.us.
The Fulcrum will select a range of submissions to share with readers as part of our ongoing civic dialogue.
We offer this platform for discussion and debate.