The Holistic View

Holistic: characterized by comprehension of the parts of something as intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole - Oxford Dictionary

As social science instructors, we were encouraged to evaluate students’ work in a holistic manner.  In other words, rather than looking at how a response matched up to the ideal answer, we looked at the merits of a student’s overall writing on a topic in the case of essays, or his/her overall demonstration of understanding in terms of a class grade.  We can use this same holistic approach in evaluating the kind of person Donald J. Trump is, his actions as president, and in other situations as well. 

To explain, suppose we aren’t 100% positive about a particular incident or statement.  However, we estimate the chances at about 85% that several key parts of the issue are correct, are about 95% certain about several other factors, and are 99% sure about a couple of key components involved.  On the other hand, we are aware of no contrary evidence with a high probability of being accurate.  A holistic thinker would reasonably conclude that the matter is therefore almost certainly true, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here’s a specific example to clarify further.  Suppose someone says that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and is president of the US because of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.  A reasonable reply might be that there is no conclusive proof of those things, and therefore they are just guesses or opinions.  Fair enough.  However, a holistic view of the matter would consider that:

·         The thorough and heavily documented Mueller report made it clear there was no doubt that Russia interfered in the election in Trump’s favor, and in opposing Clinton. Since it’s nearly impossible to be 100% certain of most things, let’s give this conclusion a 99% probability of being correct.

·         Each one of the US’s 17 intelligence agencies reported that they were “confident” Russia interfered in the election on Trump’s behalf.  Let’s give that view a 95% probability. 

·         Even Mike Pompeo, Trump’s current Secretary of State agrees, and is on record as saying “I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community,” Pompeo said. “This threat is real.”  Let’s give him a 95% as well. 

·         Republicans have continually criticized all of the Russia investigations.  Yet, a three-year review by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously found that the intelligence community assessment, pinning blame on Russia and outlining its goals to undercut American democracy, was fundamentally sound and untainted by politics.  It would therefore seem to confirm the Mueller report’s findings, and confirm the 17 intelligence agencies findings, so how about a 97% probability here.

·         The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who was in charge of all US intelligence agencies at the time, stated in 2018 that “To me, it just exceeds logic and credulity that (Russia) didn’t affect the election, and it is my belief that they actually turned it.”  In other words, the man who had access to information not revealed to the public thinks Russia gave Trump the win.  Well, that’s just his opinion.  But considering that he knows as much or more than anyone else on the subject, let’s give that an 85% chance of being correct.

·         As for the issue of how effective Russia’s efforts were, we know that surprising wins in a few key states, i.e. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, resulted from Trump victories in certain important districts.  Data shows that fewer than 80,000 votes in a nation of 146 million voters determined the winner in those districts.  Importantly – those were districts heavily targeted by Russian pro-Trump interference.  Considering the huge scale of Russia’s interference in the election, turning 80,000 votes seems easily doable.  Wouldn’t a 90% probability that their efforts in those key districts had the intended effect seem reasonable? 

·         Trump lied about not knowing any Russians, as later evidence clearly showed multiple contacts with various Russians.  Additionally, his son Eric bragged that Trump businesses got all the money they needed from Russians, his son Donald Jr. is recorded welcoming Russian help in the election, and Trump himself invited Russian interference by releasing Clinton emails, which they did the following day.  That leaves no doubt about collusion between the two parties, and puts us at the 98% probability level of that being true.

Taken together, the evidence leaves no reasonable doubt whatsoever that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf, and that there was indeed collusion (defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others) between the two parties.  Additionally, it seems highly likely that Russian interference was enough to swing a victory to Trump, making him president because of their efforts.  To credibly argue otherwise, one would have to come up with evidence to the contrary, with such evidence having high probabilities of being provably true.  I am unaware of any such arguments or evidence. 

֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   ֎   

We can use this concept and technique to draw many other conclusions as well.  For example, we often hear the Democrats say one thing about Trump, his administration, and their actions, while the Republicans say something else altogether.  Usually, it’s not too difficult to figure out whose version is closer to the truth by studying the evidence and the facts.  But not always, and in any case, many people don’t want to bother.  So they just go along with whatever side they prefer politically, and leave it at that.  But there’s a better way. 

When a rational, unbiased person looks at the information presented by both sides, there is a clear pattern.  In almost every case in the past few years, data and other evidence presented by the Democrats and their media allies, e.g. CNN and the NY Times, are verifiably factual and are used in ways that have few if any logical flaws.  On the other hand, many of the Republican claims, and those of Fox News et al, are demonstrably false and/or logically faulty.  (You could say that I make this judgement because I myself am biased or illogical, yet a review of my background and history show that this is not the case, and I invite you to show otherwise.)

But at any rate, this conclusion about the two sides allows us to make further determinations.  Since we know that the Democrats and their allies tend to be sources of accurate information and logical analyses nowadays, while their opponents often do not, we can use that understanding to judge otherwise unclear situations.  For example, suppose the Democrats say the evidence shows that Russia investigations were justifiably begun, that a certain E.P.A. decision will harm the environment, and that we should continue to fully fund the W.H.O., while Republicans argue otherwise.  Our knowledge of the two sides’ ways of doing things lately should lead us to conclude that the Republicans are likely to be presenting misleading information and that the Democrats’ position is probably more credible.  It hasn’t always been this way; it is a huge shame, but it is what it is.

From there it is only a small step to this sad conclusion: Whereas only a short 5 or 10 years ago, it made sense to listen to both sides before making a political decision, that is no longer the case.  Nowadays, Republicans have mostly abrogated their position as legitimate sources of information for making political decisions.  Republican pronouncements on the economy, on Covid-19, on race relations, on trade agreements, on military matters – those often are no longer credible.  And of course, most Fox network non-news material is invariably flawed in a number of ways. 

This places CNN and MSNBC – previously representing the left – mostly in agreement with ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, and PBS and virtually every other legitimate news source in the world in reporting what is actually going on.  While we can detect some liberal bias from their top anchors such as Anderson Cooper, Brian Williams, and Rachel Maddow, they present news with high levels of professionalism and credibility.  In other words: They don’t lie or intentionally misrepresent facts, and the times where their bias gets in the way of presenting verifiable truth are extremely rare.  They are reliable sources of what’s going on. 

That is in sharp contrast to Fox’s top draws such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who consistently offer thoroughly biased, bombastic reporting that is regularly misleading and often outright false.  As for the top (and liberal) print sources, the NY Times and Washington Post, these days they very rarely disagree with the most neutral and credible sources like Reuters, AP, and Christian Science Monitor, and even with the more conservative Wall Street Journal. 

Nevertheless, some people are going to insist that ALL of those sources are “fake”, but that is not a credible claim, as my related essay Mainstream Media makes clear: https://jstrebler.blogspot.com/2018/11/mainstream-media.html. 

Our final takeaway then is the bizarre and sad conclusion that a logical, unbiased person is justified in being biased against the Republicans and their allies.  That is because of what the former leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, John Boehner, admitted after leaving office: “There is no Republican party anymore.  There is only the Trump party.”  When Republican politicians regain their spines and minds, and when conservative media sources revert to presenting credible facts and logical argument, then and only then should we once again listen to what they have to say.  Meanwhile, lying, colluding Trump, put in power by Russia, deserves only our scorn and opposition, as do his Republican and media lackeys.