In part three of this essay, the conclusion was made that we discard the teaching of history—in fact, the teaching of a secular faith purporting to be history—in favor of a thorough and continual grounding, much more than is now done, in critical thinking, rhetoric, polemics, and the Socratic method of teaching.  We asked how the world would be different if we made that change. 

If we became skeptical by nature, different kinds of advertising would have to change:  political campaigns, White House and Congressional pronouncements, product and service promotions.  The thirty-second sound bite and the hit piece by mail—soon to come to a mailbox near you if you live in Montebello—would loose their potency. 

Negative political advertising would become a negative for those doing the advertising.  Endorsements and brag sheets would be less impressive because we the skeptical voters would give less credence.  Facts and statistics would take on greater significance, as would personal appearances and local endorsements.  Candidates more likely would use the Internet to communicate information, providing hyperlinks to impartial third-party Web sites.  Would candidates communicate directly with voters via e-mail and online discussion groups?  Maybe.  The problem there would be that the candidates might use paid consultants to do the talking for them. 

The White House and Congress, in order to gain support, would quote third-party sources more often and would make more government documents public.  (One imagines that this would apply to all government entities at all levels, except those which felt themselves impervious to the will of the populace.)  News conferences would have third-party speakers endorsing the White House or Congressional position.  We would give news from foreign sources more weight than we now do. 

As for commercial advertising, we might see less buffoonery—as entertaining as that is—and more reference to impartial third parties, like a consumer-protection agency, Consumer Union or a medical association. 

Since it is unlikely that enough of us would become skeptics to bring about what is explained above, what is the next best thing?  That is explored in the next part.

June 28, 2007