Spread the love

The Harm Group Think Causes in Politics. Yes, Even In Loudoun County, Regardless of Party

The Harm Group Think Causes in Politics. Both Republicans and Democrats Are Guilty

Section 1: Introduction

Politics is an essential aspect of human existence, and the decisions made by political leaders have a significant impact on our daily lives. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that political decisions are made based on individual critical thinking and not group think. Group think is a phenomenon whereby a group of individuals adopts a common belief or decision that may not be the best for the majority. This blog post explores the harm group think causes in politics.

Section 2: Lack of Diversity

When people engage in group think, they tend to suppress alternative views, and this limits diversity of thought. This creates a situation where only a few ideas are discussed, and group members become less creative in problem-solving. In politics, this can lead to the creation of policies that only favor a minority group or a select few individuals, and the majority may not benefit from such policies.

Furthermore, when group members are not open to alternative ideas, they become less critical of their decisions, and the decisions made may not be the best for the majority. This is because group members may become overly confident in their ideas, and this can limit their ability to see the flaws in their decisions.

Section 3: Polarization

Group think can also lead to polarization in politics. This is because group members tend to form a strong bond and become less receptive to ideas from outside the group. This creates a situation where individuals who do not share the same opinions as the group are considered outsiders and are often excluded from political discourse.

Moreover, when group members are polarized, they tend to become more extreme in their views, and this can lead to political tension and unrest. In extreme cases, group polarization can lead to violence and civil unrest, which can be detrimental to the welfare of the society.

Section 4: Self-Censorship

Group think can also lead to self-censorship, whereby group members may not express their views for fear of being isolated or ostracized. This can lead to the suppression of important views and ideas that could have contributed to better decision making in politics.

Furthermore, self-censorship can lead to the creation of echo chambers, whereby group members only listen to ideas that confirm their beliefs. This can limit the ability of group members to see the bigger picture and make decisions that are best for the majority.

Section 5: Confirmation Bias

When group members engage in group think, they tend to confirm their beliefs and ideas, leading to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is a phenomenon whereby individuals tend to seek information that confirms their beliefs and ignore information that contradicts their beliefs.

In politics, confirmation bias can lead to the creation of policies that only favor a select few individuals or minority groups. This can be detrimental to the welfare of the majority who may not benefit from such policies.

Section 6: Lack of Accountability

Group think can also lead to a lack of accountability in politics. This is because group members tend to protect each other and may not be open to criticism from outside the group. This can create a situation where group members are not held accountable for their decisions.

Furthermore, when group members are not open to criticism, they may not be receptive to feedback that could have contributed to better decision making. This can lead to the creation of policies that are not effective or efficient.

Section 7: Limited Innovation

Group think can also limit innovation in politics. This is because group members tend to adopt the same ideas and solutions, limiting the exploration of alternative ideas and solutions.

Moreover, when group members are not open to alternative ideas, they become less creative in problem-solving, and this can lead to the creation of policies that are not effective or efficient in addressing the challenges facing society.

Section 8: Lack of Transparency

Group think can also lead to a lack of transparency in politics. This is because group members tend to make decisions behind closed doors, limiting the involvement of other stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process.

Furthermore, when group members are not transparent in their decision making, they may create a perception of corruption and lack of accountability. This can lead to a loss of trust in political leaders and the political system, which can be detrimental to the welfare of the society.

Section 9: Conclusion

Group think is a phenomenon that can be detrimental to the welfare of the society, especially in politics. It limits diversity of thought, creates polarization, leads to self-censorship, confirmation bias, lack of accountability, limited innovation, and lack of transparency.

Therefore, it is essential to promote critical thinking in politics and ensure that decisions are made based on individual thought and not group think. This can be achieved through promoting diversity of thought, encouraging open and honest communication, and involving all stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process.

Section 10: Call to Action

As constituents, it is our responsibility to hold our political leaders accountable and ensure that they make decisions based on individual critical thinking and not group think. We should demand transparency, diversity of thought, and accountability in the decision-making process and be open to alternative ideas and solutions.

Moreover, we should promote critical thinking in our communities and encourage our friends and family to think critically about political decisions and policies. This can contribute to better decision making in politics and ultimately, the welfare of the society.

Jeniffer Wexton on:

public Safety

Crime has vaulted near the top of voters’ concerns, just after the economy and inflation. According to Gallup, 80 percent of Americans worry “a great deal” or a “fair amount” about crime, the highest level in two decades.

 

Such fears pose yet another midterm election hurdle for Democrats, on top of public angst over soaring prices and President Biden’s dismal public approval ratings.

 

As a former prosecutor, substitute judge, legal advocate for children, state Senator, and as a legislator, Jennifer Wexton should be well aware that our society is a dangerous place. Wexton should understand that our children, the elderly, and everyone else in between needs to be protected from violent criminals and repeat offenders. She ignores this and advocates on their behalf with light sentences, “no cash bail”, Criminal Justice Reform, and Restorative Justice.

 

Do you recall the rape of a (15) year old girl in a Loudoun County High School bathroom in May 2021 by a transgendered student? If this wasn’t bad enough, “Criminal Justice Reform” allowed for the rapists sentenced to be reduced, removing him from the sexual assault registry and providing supervised probation. To make matters worse, the Loudoun County Public Schools Superintendent Scott Ziegler IGNORED the federally mandated processes and procedures when incidents of this nature occur, and now Wexton is abolishing Title IX protections under HR5-Equality Act.

 

Jennifer Wexton got the ball rolling on the rapists lenient sentence by introducing Bill NO. 1082 in 2017, which passed (and she’s proud of it, see video during meeting with NAACP).

In 2019, Wexton proudly endorsed Buta Biberaj for Loudoun County Commonwealth Attorney. Prior to being elected, Biberaj was the legal redress for the Loudoun NAACP; this is not an insignificant detail. Biberaj also belongs to the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors For Justice. The VPPFJ’s primary goal is “Criminal Justice Reform” or “Restorative Justice”.

 

Wexton, Biberaj are closely aligned Progressive ideologues and share questionable associations with a variety of organizations and people.

Who could forget the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 over George Floyd. Wexton is so radical that she sponsored the “George Floyd Justice Policing Act” (defund the police) and the “Mental Health Justice Act” that allowed for increased funding for social workers that are meant to take the place of police officers around the country.

 

These are only a few examples of what Wexton and the Progressive Democrats “Criminal Justice Reform” and “Restorative Justice” look like for Public Safety:

 

More on Wexton and Public Safety

%d bloggers like this: