The Onset of the Binary Brain

Maybe it started with the advent of the digital age. It became epidemic during the 2016 election.

Binary brain.

When it became evident that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, Conservatives and Constitutionalists who refused to endorse him were assailed by those who had succumbed to the dreaded Binary Brain syndrome.

“No. Sorry. I still think Trump is unfit for office.”

“You must love HIllary!”

What?

“I guess you think Obama was a great President!”

What?

Do these people really believe there are only two choices here? When someone says they don’t like chocolate ice cream, do they automatically serve them vanilla? When their guest declines coffee, are they forced to drink tea? Guess what? It’s possible to disagree with more than two people at a time.

“No. I don’t consider Melania Trump a good role model because of the deceptive way she immigrated here and then worked illegally as a porn model.”

“I suppose you’ve never sinned!”

Wait. What?

Do they really believe we don’t judge people’s character by their actions? What does my sinful state have to do with discerning whether the First Lady is a good role model? Guess what? A person can recognize his or her own sins and those of others without considering any of them acceptable.

“I consider the nationalism and populism represented by Donald Trump to be very dangerous to our Republic.”

“You must be a Liberal!”

What?

Is that the only choice here? Guess what? Constitutionalist is another valid option!

“I’m afraid of electing a President who knows very little of the Constitution.”

“Oh, I suppose you’re a Constitutional expert!”

Um. What?

Many know that the Constitution has only seven Articles and not twelve, as Trump promised to protect right before the Republican leaders endorsed him. Guess what? Whether one is an expert or not, we should all expect the President to know the document he is swearing to “preserve and protect”.

It’s frightening to me that so many Americans have forsaken logic for blind allegiance, limiting their reasoning to only two options.

This is a dangerous psychological condition: “The false dichotomy is a logical fallacy in which only a limited number of options are considered in a situation when, in fact, there may very well be more options left unconsidered. Frequently, the person making the argument might express an assumption that there are only two options to choose from. This fallacy is often present in making false assumptions that if a person does not agree with X, they must necessarily be anti-X, when in reality they may hold some intermediate position or be undecided.”

Those who fall victim to this false dichotomy can be easily manipulated or threatened to make poor choices because they cannot consider a wide range of better alternatives. People in positions of power can deceive them into choosing poorly because only two bad choices are given.

I hope that this condition is short-lived, for their sakes and the sake of the nation.