Critical Thinking versus Propaganda

I grew up in the 60’s and witnessed a lot of things happening in our country; the protests over the Vietnam War, the race riots of 67 and 68, which included big cities burning; cities like Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D.C., Kansas City, to name a few.  We endured the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK jr.  I didn’t go, but Woodstock was in 69.  And, we all lived in the fear of the Soviet Union because we never knew what the hell they were going to do during the Cold War.  Afterall, Nikita Khrushchev's famous quote spoken in 1954, “We will bury you!”, carried a different connotation for many Americans.  Thankfully Khrushchev was deposed in 1964, but only after he tried to put Russian ICBMs in Cuba, which would have rained hell on the US.

The small town in which I lived provided me with ample opportunities.  I had the opportunity to hunt, fish, play sports, and had one hell of an education.  My graduating class of 68 people had three (3) national merit semi-finalists.  Our school had NO HONOR CLASSES, NO ADVANCED PLACEMENT CLASSES, just great teachers who had high expectations for their students and held each one accountable for their actions.  I should know about accountability, because in my senior year, along with some of my class mates, we wrote and published an underground school newspaper ridiculing one of the faculty members and damned near got expelled over it.  Not suspended, expelled.

I bring this to your attention because I wanted you to know where I came from and what I came from and why this entry will be about two things that are lacking in our society at the moment, in my view, critical thinking and the understanding of propaganda.

Critical thinking is important to a success of a democratic state, a thriving economy, for research and development in the medical field…the list could go on and on.  But the question that many cannot answer is what are the attributes or characteristics of critical thinking?  I was taught well in high school to acquire these characteristics…to acquire those characteristics because of the Russian propaganda that was being publicized on almost a daily basis.

And so, with that, let us examine the two points of emphasis for this entry…critical thinking characteristics and propaganda.

First and foremost, I asked two former colleagues whom are highly qualified to answer my posed question, what they believed critical thinking meant to them.  One colleague answered, “Asking questions that takes one beyond what is on the surface”, while the other colleague suggested, “When I think of critical thinking, analysis of the information presented is crucial. I know there are all kinds of characteristics involved, but I think of it as a lab experiment. You have to gather available information, identify what is real and what is false. I believe that you then must evaluate this information as to where it fits with what you know versus what you believe all the while knowing that you may be challenging your belief system. You have to be open-minded enough to process and accept or deny this new information. Bottom line, you have to use your brain and not your gut.”

After a deep dive into the internet to search for critical thinking attributes, I was provided with the following:

Core Characteristics & Traits

• Inquisitive & Curious: Constantly asking questions, seeking deeper understanding, and staying well-informed.
• Open-Minded: Willing to consider new ideas and different viewpoints, even those conflicting with personal beliefs, and change views based on evidence.
• Analytical & Systematic: Breaking down complex information, identifying logical connections, and thinking through problems step-by-step.
• Evidence-Based: Valuing credible data and evidence, and using it to support conclusions, not just accepting information at face value.
• Skeptical & Objective: Questioning claims, identifying biases, and avoiding emotional reasoning or jumping to conclusions.
• Clear & Precise: Striving for clarity, accuracy, and relevance in thought and communication.
• Fair-Minded: Evaluating arguments and ideas impartially, understanding different sides without immediate dismissal.
• Self-Aware & Humble: Recognizing personal limitations, biases, and the possibility of being wrong, and being willing to learn.
• Persistent:  Continuing to seek truth and understanding, even when facing complex or ambiguous problems. 

Other Key Skills Involved Are:

• Interpretation: Understanding the meaning and significance of information.
• Inference: Drawing logical conclusions from data.
• Evaluation: Assessing the credibility and quality of sources and arguments.
• Problem-Solving: Developing strategies to overcome challenges.
• Decision-Making: Choosing the best course of action based on analysis.
• Explanation: Clearly articulating reasoning and conclusions. 

As a former classroom educator, I am aware of the Socratic Method of teaching.  Essentially, the Socratic Method requires the questioning of the individual’s belief until what is considered “fundamental truth is realized”.  Then the student or person will actually know why they know what they know.  It may be a slow, drawn-out process, but in general, it begins with “Why?”

As you may have imagined, that was part of my high school education.  The English instructors I had asked for our position in regards to Shakespear’s Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet, and then asked us to defend our position.  Our math instructors taught us how to create truth tables for a mathematical hypothesis to determine if the hypothesis was true or false.  For those who took chemistry, it goes without saying the experiments were done according to the scientific method, which requires many of the steps of critical thinking.

And yes, there were discussions, but a discussion regarding the thoughts of individuals that didn’t require an attack on the individual as in an ad hominem venture.  These events took on several of the characteristics listed above…in particular, being curious, open minded, and the possibility one may be wrong.  Very few times did ridicule or anger come from the discussions.
 
About now, you are probably asking yourself, what is the point of this…I don’t blame you, but be patient.

As I said, I grew up in the 60s, and there were many external factors that helped mold my belief system. The Cold War and not knowing what the Soviets were going to do was disturbing.  It was almost like looking over your shoulder, waiting for something crazy to happen.  We watched on tv the Cuban Missile Crisis unfold and it was impactful.  The war in Vietnam was brought into our homes every night on tv.

Our government and the press continually bombarded the American people with the latest propaganda from the Soviet Union.  I know what propaganda is and its purpose, but just to be sure, I did a deep dive into the internet to seek out characteristics of propaganda and its uses.  What I didn’t realize is that the concept of propaganda is used in a variety of ways…think advertising and marketing.  It is also used to express a vision for a company or even a nation.

With that in mind, let me provide you with the results of what I found regarding propaganda.

prop·a·gan·da /ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun

1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a particular cause, doctrine, or point of view.

 
These principles describe methods used to manipulate public opinion, focusing on emotional appeals, repetition, and the simplification of complex issues. The summarized techniques include:
 

• Lie Big: Using enormous falsehoods, as people may find them harder to disbelieve than smaller lies.
• Focus: Keeping the message uncomplicated and ignoring complex context for mass appeal.
• Repeat: Constantly repeating a simple message to build familiarity.
• Blame: Consistently blaming and dehumanizing the opposition.
• Provoke: Using outrage, fear, and resentment as motivators over rational thought.
• Crisis: Framing issues as a matter of survival to create urgency.
• Emotion: Appealing directly to personal feelings, which are harder to question than facts.
• Pander: Flattering one's base and demonizing critics.
• No Limits: Suggesting that the victor's morality is not questioned, implying that the ends justify the means. 

Core Techniques & Elements:

• Emotional Manipulation: Aims to evoke strong feelings (fear, pride, anger, patriotism) rather than logical thought.
• Simplification: Reduces complex issues to black-and-white choices or easy-to-digest slogans.
• Symbols & Slogans: Uses powerful images (flags, uniforms) or catchy phrases to represent complex ideas.
• Selective Information: Presents only facts that support the agenda, omitting contradictory evidence or the distortion of data.
• Repetition: Repeats messages and slogans frequently to make them seem more familiar and believable.
• Stereotyping: Labels groups or individuals to create prejudice or appeal to existing biases.
• Name-Calling: Uses derogatory labels to discredit opponents.
• Authority: Uses respected figures or experts to endorse an idea.
• Band Wagon: Suggests everyone else is doing it, encouraging conformity.
• Fear Appeals: Scares audiences into action.
• Glittering Generalities: Uses vague, emotionally appealing words (freedom, justice) without concrete meaning

Just examining this information, it is relatively easy to understand how concern, consternation, and fear the Russians could impose on the American people in the late 50s and early 60s.  Our government didn’t outwardly call on a nationalistic sense from our people, nor was the term “patriot” bandied about as well.  But the idea of the US being a strong, determined nation was ever present.

Being an American History and Political Science major in college, I had to examine historical policy as well as political policy.  And to my surprise there was a bit of propaganda in both arenas.  For example, the Emancipation Proclamation tell us Lincoln freed the slaves January 1, 1863.  There is some truth to that, but consider this; the Confederate States of America didn’t pay attention to what Lincoln had to say.  The slaves of the Confederacy were not truly freed until the war was over.  If there were any slaves held in the United States, those slaves were freed under the Emancipation Proclamation.  A bit of historical propaganda.

As for political propaganda, consider the reason the United States was involved in Vietnam.  The main policy that led to US troops in Vietnam was the Cold War doctrine of Containment, specifically justified by the Domino Theory, which posited that if one Southeast Asian nation fell to communism, others would follow, prompting Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to escalate involvement to prevent South Vietnam's collapse.  Also included in this policy was the fact the US wanted to stop the spread of Communism to the United States.

Being a person who was somewhat curious and inquisitive I often asked of people how Communism, an ideology, was to float across the Pacific and somehow contaminate the beaches of the free and brave.  No one could give an answer.

At that time, I realized our government spins the narrative to fit its needs.  I believe that is something foreign to most Americans.  So, this “enlightenment” on my part caused me to become skeptical unless concrete evidence could be produced to support actions of our government.  In other words, I found it beneficial to ask for proof, to ask for evidence, to make my own decisions regarding actions of our government. 
 
I support the Constitution, the protocols laid out by the Constitution, the separation of powers of government, the idea of transparency in governmental policy, all the while knowing our government will not tell the public everything because the fear of setting off panic in our streets.  I get that.  What bothers me is at this very moment this administration is spinning the narrative so much, Khrushchev would be proud.

People who are critical thinkers are not wanted in the United States at this moment by this administration.  People who ask questions, namely the press, are castigated, called names, and ridiculed by this administration.  People who are analytical, who want some sort of evidence to support the narrative given by the administration are “blown off” by the administration.  People who want to be clear and precise, or have a clear, articulated, factual response to a simple question are ignored and given some spin of the narrative that supports the administration.
 
The narrative regarding Venezuela has unfolded and changed, there have been questions asked, but not answered.  The logic of the Venezuelan narrative has been unclear and questionable.
  
This administration originally told the American people the leader of Venezuela was part of a drug cartel that was running fentanyl to the United States in speed boats.  The fentanyl was killing Americans.  As a result, the United States Military began destroying boats suspect of running fentanyl to the United States.  The United States Military killed over 100 people while destroying over two dozen boats.  This was all done in the name of national security and protecting American citizens from Venezuelan President Maduro and his fentanyl.  Certainly, this illicited an emotional issue for many Americans.  As it turns out, the speed boats may have actually been transporting cocaine, destined for Europe.  No evidence has been provided to support the narrative of fentanyl being transported to the U.S. from Venezuela, other than what the administration has stated.  Contrary to this narrative, it has been widely discussed by this administration, the fentanyl was coming to the United States via Mexico, and that China was supplying necessary material for the fentanyl to be manufactured in Mexico. 
 
The United States Military also began to apprehend “sanctioned ships” who were transporting Venezuelan oil to other countries.  It would have been far clearer, if this administration had done what JFK did to Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis and placed a naval blockade on all sea traffic going to and coming from Cuba until the Soviets left Cuba, missiles in hand.  A naval blockade of Venezuela would have notified the entire world and American people the intentions of the United States; it would have stated credible data and evidence, and used it to support the conclusions of JFK’s administration.  Instead, the current administration has asked the nation and world to accept the narrative at face value. 
 
And as it has turned out, the end game of this policy seems to be the apprehension of Maduro, (some may call it a kidnapping because the United States has no jurisdiction in Venezuela), and the installation of another Maduro compatriot as the new President of Venezuela.  This United States has said we are now running Venezuela until it is appropriate to turn the reins of government back to Venezuela.  The American administration has invited American oil executives to the White House for a meeting to determine if the American oil executives are willing to go back to Venezuela and upgrade the infrastructure of the Venezuelan oil industry and begin to produce oil.  One US executive said he found Venezuela “uninvestable”.  Recently, this administration claims to have sold 500 million dollars of Venezuelan oil, and has stashed the money in a Qatar bank, to be controlled by the President of the United States.

It must be noted, that since the apprehension of Maduro, as of this day, January 16th, 2026, no more drug speed boats have been sunk by the American military.  None.  Let that sink in.  So, what was (is) then, the end game for the United States in Venezuela?

Now I call upon you, the reader, to become a critical thinker.  Review the characteristics of critical thinking and the characteristics of propaganda.  I want you to revisit actions by this administration that may have asked you to believe things at face value.  I want you to revisit the number of times this administration has called people derogatory names because they asked questions or denied the narrative being spun by the administration.  I want you to revisit questionable narratives this administration has spoken and printed.

I want you to think about Greenland.  This administration has said the United States needs Greenland for national defense.  That doesn’t make any sense.  Denmark and Greenland are members of NATO, and the United States has a military base in Greenland.  The United States has been given the green light to expand its military presence in Greenland by Denmark.  So why take Greenland?  What is the real end game?  Rare earth minerals?

I want you to think about how this administration has tried to control the press.  This administration has sued the New York times, Wall Street Journal BBC, CBS News/Paramount, ABC News and he Des Moine Register primarily for defamation, often over coverage related to his business dealings, political statements, or investigations into his activities.  This administration has tried to have late night talk show hosts fired for their satire and comedy regarding the administration.  All of this, and I mean all of this, flies in the face of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, I want you to think about this quote from the President about deploying the National Guard to Chicago:  “I have the right to do anything I want to do.  I’m the President of the United States.”  If you know anything about checks and balances, the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the Constitution, does this statement ring true?

Be a critical thinker…our nation very much needs that at the moment.