Don’t Connect Every Dot

The View from the Middle

“Connecting the dots” is a favorite game of people who are trying to predict the future and those who are trying to assign credit or blame for the past.  If you are searching for truth, it is an important game to play.  At Procter & Gamble, where I worked for 37 years, many people played this game in an attempt to learn from the past and thus predict the future more accurately in order to improve our decisions and improve the company’s profit.  The ability to truthfully connect the dots is an important skill to have in the business world.

I have found, however, that politicians have subverted the “connect the dots” process because they have changed the goal from “finding the truth” to “defending my position” no matter what.  You see, you can connect some dots that have no business being connected.  Let me give you an example that you have all probably heard before.  “The rooster crows in the morning and then the Sun comes up.”  This does not mean, however, that the first thing (the rooster crowing) causes the second (the Sun comes up).  These are two dots that should not be connected. 

There are many examples of inappropriate dot connecting going on in the world today, but I’m only going to talk about four.  The first I will call “The Obama administration credit grabbing dot connecting game”.  It goes like this – Barak Obama has been President for the past six years (a big dot) so if anything happens in this country that is good (stock market rises, oil production goes up, unemployment goes down), the President is the cause, or gets the credit.  They connect these dots even though they are often as inappropriate as the rooster and sunrise example given earlier.

For example, the Dow Industrial Average has more than doubled (actually increased about 150%) since its low in 2009.  That is a fact.  Obama has been President since 2009.  Should we connect these dots?  Not really.  There are other reasons for this dramatic improvement.  First, back in 2009, the Dow was severely oversold and undervalued, so the base or starting point is too low.  Second, interest rates have been ridiculously low since he has been in office so money is just seeking a reasonable return.  It is normal for the stock market to increase when interest rates are low and Obama has benefited from these rates throughout his Presidency, not caused them.

There are other reasons for the stock market improvement and even the general improvement of the economy, but none of them can be connected to the Obama dot.  President Obama has been one of the least “business friendly” Presidents in modern history.  His preference for regulation and control of everything from healthcare to the Internet actually works against the growth in the Dow and the economy in general.  These things have happened in spite of him, not because of him.  Do NOT connect these dots.

Global Warming, I mean climate change, is another area that is raining dots, literally and figuratively, that should not be connected.  The name change alone should send a signal that something is not right here.  The second signal that something is fishy in this debate is that Climate Change activists immediately try to shut down the debate by claiming that this is “settled science” and of course anyone who would even question their arguments is an idiot.  This is straight from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.  In fact, it is rule #5.  Ridicule your opponent. 

But I do question the Climate Change zealots.  You can put me in the agnostic group.  Is the world getting warmer?  I think so, although there is evidence that temperature readings have been tampered with (adjusted).  Are we the cause?  I’m not sure.  We have been through wide temperature swings for the past couple hundred thousand years.  Are we at the peak of one of those swings?  Will temperatures naturally fall, globally, as they have done in the past?  I don’t know.

Climate scientists will have to admit that our global climate system is ridiculously complex, and I would agree with them.  I would also suggest that predicting it accurately even in the short term, let alone the long term, is impossible given our current knowledge and expertise.  This is why all of their predictions have ended up wrong.  Al Gore guaranteed the polar ice caps would be totally gone five years ago.  New York should be underwater by now and millions of people should be migrating to cooler patches in the world due to droughts and famine.  Scandinavia and Siberia should be teaming with these immigrants, but they are not.

Whenever you mix politics with anything, even science, beware.  Today, we have too many scientists who are invested in their predictive models chumming up with too many politicians who only care about money and votes.  Al Gore was at least specific with his predictions, although he was dead wrong.  Now Climate Change enthusiasts have changed their approach.  They will tell you that if we don’t make the drastic changes now (carbon taxes, coal and oil regulations, etc.) that all hell with break loose in 100 years from now.  Of course, conveniently, they will all be dead, their predictions long forgotten, but their money still made and spent and invested today.  Convenient isn’t it?

I’m always comfortable when I align with Charles Krauthammer on any issue, and I do on this one.  Remember, the key to all of their argument is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which they connect to human activity.  Did you know that CO2 represents on .04% of our atmosphere now.  Not one percent.  Not even one tenth of a percent, but four hundredths of one percent.

Now, do I believe we should go around trashing the world?  Of course not.  We should be good stewards of this planet, but right now we should be having the debate and doing the research to make good decisions about our present and our future.  Should we be trying to figure out how to develop solar, wind, hydroelectric and even nuclear power safely and efficiently.  Yes, but that won’t happen by killing coal and oil today.  And, by the way, the United States is on the leading edge of global clean up.  Other huge polluters like China, Russia and India are clearly not as concerned about this issue.

The bottom line is, this is NOT settled science, and anyone who is trying to close down this debate is the true villain.  Don’t let them connect illogical dots.  We need real discussion of this issue and research before we create real pain, especially for the economically challenged, in the short and long term just to enrich the already powerful and wealthy.

Social issues also often lead to improper dot connecting, and this is largely done for political purposes.  If a person is pro-life, they will be labeled as a misogynist.  Abortion is a traumatic experience for everyone involved.  Obviously, it is catastrophic for the baby, but the mothers risk real physical, psychological and social problems.  And remember, at least half of abortions performed are ending the lives of female babies.  Anyone who is interested in reducing the number of abortions done in this country or this world can hardly be called a hater of women.

Likewise, there are some who protest the idea of having the government pay for every woman’s birth control choices.  This is not anti-woman, it is pro-choice.  Every woman should have the right to choose whatever contraceptive device she likes, but when you begin to ask others to pay for it, you begin to violate their right to their beliefs and their money.  Some, like the owners of Hobby Lobby, strongly oppose the use of abortifacient drugs, and even according to the Supreme Court, this right must be protected.  Others, like me, object to supplying all contraceptive devices no matter the financial resources available.  Why should we be buying Chelsea Clinton’s birth control pills, or any other rich person who has the resources to buy them on their own?  If the cost of birth control is a true hardship, I’m in favor of helping them out, just not everyone.

So, don’t connect these dots.  Politicians will try to turn us against each other even when our differences are minimal or nonexistent, and they are doing it for power and votes. 

And the final and maybe most insidious dot of all is the race card.  As we swore this President into office back in 2009, I thought we might have our best chance to make some real progress in race relations in America.  Unfortunately, that has not happened.  In fact, virtually every gauge would indicate that race relations have worsened under this President.  Why is that?

I believe a huge part of this deterioration comes from the defenders of our President and also our Attorney General.  The mainstream media often suggests that any disagreements with President Obama or Eric Holder are driven by prejudice.  It is as if no one can disagree with either man on the merits of any argument.

For the most part, the President allows his surrogates to imply that disagreement with him connects to the racist dot.  Eric Holder has actually suggested that “some” people disagree with him because of his race.  Of course, as he makes these statements, it allows his supporters to attach bigotry to every disagreement. 

Hiding behind race is wrong in so many ways, but I will mention three that are obvious to me.  First, it is wrong most of the time.  For example, I disagree with both of these men on many fundamental issues (size and scope of government, etc.) but it has nothing to do with the color of their skin.  Second, this approach drives a wedge between black and white Americans.  And finally, it camouflages real acts of racism.  Connecting these dots does not serve black America or white America.  It only divides us.

So, beware of the dot connecting game.  When you sense people (especially politicians) suggesting that one fact automatically leads to or is connected to another, be suspicious.  Is there a personal gain?  Does this connection serve to attack or diminish or demonize an opponent?  If the answer is yes, it may well be a case of inappropriate dot connecting.  It could be a case of the rooster and the sunrise all over again.