At the recent Barack Obama rally, the charming and amiable presidential hopeful presented his plans for the direction he wants to take the nation and stated what he aims to accomplish during his time as president — things such as providing universal health care and getting the troops out of Iraq, among other pressing issues. Except he didn’t actually lay out any plans; rather, he simply outlined what he means to do and said nothing regarding howhe plans to do it. Which is fine; he can tell us how he means to execute these aims later. What is not fine, however, is that I heard countless thrilled affirmations of faith in Mr. Obama’s candidacy, based solely on the content of his address, as I left the rally.

Let’s pause for a moment. Mr. Obama’s speech showed that he is a viable candidate for the presidency because … he’s charismatic? He seems like a nice guy? He wantsto get the troops out of Iraq?

Don’t get me wrong, I too love charismatic politicians and want the troops out of Iraq, but if these are the primary reasons that people are forming candidate allegiances, then why don’t we elect Leonardo DiCaprio as president? Obviously, it’s not that simple, and I don’t mean to say that everybody is completely lured in by the appeal to emotional sensibilities. But while I do believe, and hope, that more than a negligible minority of voters will look at the facts of candidates’ health care or national security plans rather than just being charmed by an energetic and sincere-sounding speech, we all know there are plenty of people who won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because, frankly, she seems like a bitch.

This is the root of our gravest political errors: We let our personal sentiments get in the way of thinking clearly and critically and in the process, lose sight of crucial facts.

Take for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguably one of the most elusive and seemingly unsolvable conflicts not only for this generation but for all generations to come. This is an issue for which ignorance and closed-mindedness play a frighteningly key role.

One of the problems with the way this conflict is addressed in the United States is that divisive opinions are imposed before they are independently formed. It took me a long time to shake off the claim, coming from certain Jewish communities, that questioning both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes one a “self-hating Jew,” as well as the assumption of a uniformity of opinion within the Jewish community with the constant mention of “standing by Israel,” often viewed as a necessary component for maintaining Jewish identity. I am not making any claims regarding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, or any other, but to say that a presupposed framework of uniformity of beliefs serves only as a barrier to understanding and healthy discourse.

Obviously, it is no surprise that any organization with an agenda will promote that agenda in any way possible, often without regard for factual information. And that is precisely why it is imperative not to allow ourselves to be indoctrinated by an ideology before carefully analyzing the notions it presents. Letting this happen is equivalent to letting ourselves become brainwashed.

The ease with which we fall into a pattern of thought can be scary, as we are bombarded with opinions from every possible outlet — be it home, school, the paper and so on — which is why it is so important to take what we hear and filter it with actual fact.

As much as what I’m saying seems painfully obvious, we must learn to make the distinction between opinions that are formed based on personal inclinations and then researched to support the presupposed one-sided belief, and views that crystallize after research and analysis. Once an opinion is instilled, it’s a lot easier to tailor the search for evidence such that it supports an already held belief. And that’s where the real danger lies, as those with one-dimensional knowledge will continue to inculcate their views in others, resulting in the cycle of miscommunication that plagues national and international relations.

Political organizer and author Saul Alinsky once said that he would never “accept a rigid dogma or ideology” for fear of being consumed by a single mode of thought and action. It is this notion that represents any hope we have for achieving political unity on any level because whatever preconceived notions we have must be discarded, at least temporarily, in favor of the critical analysis that is necessary, now more than ever, for understanding the current state of our world.

Hannah Shtein ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and religious studies.