Understanding the influence of politics on our thinking can be achieved by hypothetically reversing the identities of the political parties involved in an incident and then assessing one’s reactions to the controversy. This allows for a clearer reflection on potential biases and preconceptions that may influence judgment and perspective.
If we were to consider a scenario where President Obama, for instance, gave a speech that subsequently resulted in a riot at the Capitol Building, and he chose to remain silent for three hours during the chaos, how might Republicans have responded? Similarly, how might the same group react if a jury ordered Joe Biden to pay $83.3 million to a woman he had sexually assaulted?
The series of thought experiments presented in this piece are not meant to criticize any political group but rather to inspire introspection into our political thinking methods. They provide an opportunity for us to question how different parties may interpret legal incidents involving politicians.
Consider another scenario where a judge orders Joe Biden to pay $355 million because his business repeatedly committed fraud, or a court finding that a business he ran committed 19 felonies. Would our reactions to these hypothetical situations be different based on our political affiliations, and if so, why?
Thought experiments like these may also probe individual reactions to situations such as Biden facing criminal charges for 91 felonies or appointing his unqualified children to high government office.
By flipping the parties involved in legal and political situations, we allow ourselves to look beyond the rhetoric and political biases and examine the core principles that guide our understanding of justice and rule of law. These experiments are a call for all of us, particularly legal professionals, to continually critically evaluate our perspectives, unaided by party lines.