The Citizens United decision concerns many who feel that big money has too much of an influence over our political system. Beyond this, however, is the more fundamental question of why is the pubic so gullible? Should the volume of information correlate with its believability? Consider a world in which problem-solving were the priority and dichotomous noise was immediately recognized as such. Consider a public in which more people knew clearly what their goals and priorities were and how they can be accomplished. How much more difficult it would be to use fear and prejudice to manipulate the population, if people routinely asked “Is this candidate a problem-solver or a noise maker?”

Many feel that American foreign policy regarding the Middle East is unbalanced. Al-Awlaki’s general message that America is evil resonates well with these same people. The problem is that it is too dichotomous of an approach. The effect of the Al-Awlaki’s rhetoric has been to strengthen the arguments in the U.S. that we have a lot of enemies and that it is better to fight them there than fight them here. Those that argue we should decrease our foreign military presence appear weak and naive.

At the recent republican debate, Gov Perry suggested the U.S. should not criticize Israel in public, but only in private. Later the same week, Fareed Zakaria asked a Russian diplomat about Putin’s statement that the U.S. is a parasite because of our debt. While individuals have the luxury of having private conversations, nations do not. I suggest that it is simple minded to equate reasonable criticism with “We don’t like you”, “You are not our friend.” Israel and the U.S, are not a monoliths. Being democracies, both nations engage in vigorous internal debate. Unfortunately the global ramifications of the debated issues are often given a lower priority. Criticism from allies can be important, valuable and relevant. Unfortunately, dichotomous thinking “Who are you to tell us what to do?” “How dare you interfere with our internal affairs?” confounds potentially important insights.

President Obama has no choice but to maintain the current Cuba policy, as long as there are so many small minded individuals in the country who think “Cuba is bad and must be punished. It can not be rewarded with an opening up from the U.S.” This type of thinking drowns out problem-based questions like “What actions can we take to promote freedom and democracy in Cuba?” Don’t blame the president, blame the voters.

I know this idea will not solve the capital punishment problem tomorrow, but I submit it for your consideration. The presumed goal of the criminal justice system is to promote public safety and security. If it is true that there is no formal evidence that capital punishment deters crime, then support for capital punishment is based primarily on the small minded motivation of taking revenge. I suggest that fighting this form of dichotomous thinking in general, will promote the more specific cause of fighting capital punishment.

Even if one agrees with some of what Ahmadinejad says, like the idea that there are some serious problems with American foreign policy, does he in anyway influence the debate? Can anyone in the U.S. refer to him when making any form of coherent argument? If his goal is to encourage the U,S. to be smarter in its dealing with the rest of the world, he fails. If his goal is to improve the standing of Iran in the world, he fails. Why? Because his rants are nothing but dichotomous noise. America is bad…Blah…Blah…Blah.

I know this idea will not solve the bullying problem tomorrow, but I submit it for your consideration. The problem is not with the bullied nor is it with the bullies. If you explore the motivations of the bullies, I suggest you will find bullying in many cases stems from some combination of overcoming insecurity and entertainment. The problem lies with the friends of the bullies, those who find their actions either entertaining or a source of inspiration. These are the people who unknowingly encourage the bullies. I think attacking the problem from this angle may be of value.

Within any large population, there are those who believe in trying to understand the nature of the problems they face and try to address them directly along with those who simple believe in making dichotomous noise: “Kill the bad guy,” “It’s all their fault,” “We’re great they suck.” National boundaries separate the former, but the latter have an open line of communication through hate filled rhetoric and actual violence. As a result, the noise makers on each side wind up helping each other shout down their problem solving counterparts. I believe understanding the battle between noise makers and problem solvers is our most fundamental problem. “Are you a noise maker or a problem solver?”