We pride ourselves on being free thinkers. Yet, all too often, our opinions are shaped by our political tribes. Robert B. Talisse argues that true intellectual freedom needs more than hearing opposing views – we should look for solitude, step outside familiar political categories entirely and engage with ideas beyond our intellectual paradigm.

In the run-up to the recent US presidential election, I adopted what I expected would be a reliable strategy for avoiding unwanted political discussion. Whenever someone said, “Can you believe what Kamala said?” or “Did you see Trump at yesterday’s rally?” I responded “Yes, but I’m not sure what to think about it yet.” This was meant to signal that I understood what had been referenced but didn’t want to talk about it. It would be a polite conversation-stopper, so I thought.

I was wrong. The tactic backfired – it prompted more commentary. Still, its failure revealed something important about how difficult it is to think for oneself.

Here’s what happened. My claim to not know what to think was almost always heard as a confession that I was uninformed. So, most people responded by repeating Kamala’s statement or describing what Trump had done. I would then restate my original claim, “Yes, I know – I’m just not sure what to think about it.” This usually provoked hostility. Many took me to be approving of what had been said or done. In one case, a person replied, “Well, what Kamala said is terrible, and if you don’t see that, I can’t help you.” That kind of escalation was uncommon, but the overall pattern was typical.

Weeks later, I witnessed this dynamic play out on national television. On December 1st, President Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who was convicted of three felony charges. The pardon was startling because Biden repeatedly pledged before the election that he would respect the conviction. As the news broke of Biden’s reversal, liberal commentator Molly Jong-Fast was asked on a live program for a “fast and furious” reaction. She paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.”

Her reaction became its own story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal was rendered “speechless,” “gobsmacked” by the pardon. The next day, conservative commentator Megyn Kelly featured the clip on her Sirius XM program as a “very fun example” of liberal hypocrisy. Jong-Fast’s unwillingness to declare an instant verdict was taken as an endorsement of Biden’s act, and her claim to need time to process the news was ridiculed.

SUGGESTED VIEWING Violence, vengeance and virtue With Mary Ann Sieghart, Peter Singer, Ghada Karmi, Uriel Abulof

Like the exchange with Jong-Fast, my little conversations were driven by the assumption that knowing what to think is simply a matter of hearing and looking – that forming an opinion is immediate, like sense perception. This assumption means that opinions should be automatic. It thus associates clarity of thought with the immediacy of judgment, thus leading us to disregard anyone who claims to need time to think.