When’s the last time you saw a pundit pause?

When President Joe 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 federal jury’s conviction.

As the news broke of the president’s decision, liberal political analyst Molly Jong-Fast was asked on live television for a “fast and furious” reaction to the pardon of Hunter Biden.

Jong-Fast paused for a moment, then said, “I just heard it. I have to process it. I don’t have a take. I’m sorry.”

That became a story. Several news outlets adopted the Fox News headline that a prominent liberal commentator 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.

But Jong-Fast wasn’t speechless. She said she hadn’t yet formulated a response and needed time to do so. This is a responsible position to take in the midst of breaking news.

Yet it was treated as a political failing.

The negative reaction to Jong-Fast’s caution reveals a troubling trend in American democracy. People are captivated by the “hot take,” the “call out,” the “clap back,” the immediate verdict. That makes for shallow analysis that largely repeats familiar ideas.

But responsible political judgment requires reflection, and reflection takes time.

Engage reflexes; suppress judgment

As I argue in my new book “Civic Solitude: Why Democracy Needs Distance,” the trouble is that our social environments are primed to short-circuit our thinking. They engage our reflexes while suppressing our judgment.

Here’s how. We humans are all subject to a cognitive dynamic known as belief polarization. This is the tendency for individuals to adopt more extreme perspectives as a result of their interactions with like-minded peers. When we shift toward more radical views, we become more inclined to dismiss anyone who does not agree with us as ignorant, irrational and devious.

But that’s not all. Our more extreme selves are also more “groupish” – that is, more conformist, more eager to fit in with our peers.

In other words, as we become more polarized in our beliefs, we become more invested in asserting our status within our group. We become hardliners and thus less tolerant of deviation among our allies.

As belief polarization escalates, we feel more pressure to conform. Hesitation begins to look like disloyalty. Even a momentary reluctance to affirm the party line signals to allies that our commitment to the group is wavering. Accordingly, we become more inclined simply to adopt the opinions that are popular among our peers – we decide what to think by mimicking our allies.

Opinions based on groupish dynamics

Meanwhile, our associates are subject to the same dynamics. The result is groupthink, where a network of like-minded people come to express opinions that have their source in groupish dynamics rather than facts and evidence.

Add to this that our everyday social environments are increasingly segregated along partisan lines. It is no exaggeration to say that in the United States today, opposing partisans live in different social worlds.

For example, liberals and conservatives live in different kinds of neighborhoods, shop at different stores, purchase different products, drive different vehicles, express different aesthetic preferences, work in different occupations and form different kinds of family groups. They eat different foods. They understand words differently, and even exhibit different patterns of pronunciation.

The familiar narrative of “red” and “blue” states goes far deeper than geography. In the United States today, political affiliation is more of a lifestyle than an outlook on the purposes of government.

Wanted: Thoughtful, reflective citizens

Our day-to-day lives are saturated with triggers of our partisan group loyalties. These conditions then trigger the groupish dynamics of belief polarization. This in turn means that we’re primed to act quickly in conformity with perceived group expectations, while also being less disposed to step back and think for ourselves.

To be clear, as a philosopher who focuses on democracy and civic ethics, I know that democracy needs engaged citizens. It is our duty to be civically vigilant, to be involved in the processes that shape political circumstances.

No doubt, the free press plays a central role in democracy. Reporters, pundits and analysts keep us informed while also providing their various perspectives on political matters.

However, it is possible to overemphasize the active elements of democracy. The demand for fast and furious judgment is a call for democracy conducted by partisan talking points and scripted taglines. It’s as if all of life were to be conducted in a spin room.

No less crucial for the democratic project is a citizenry that is thoughtful and reflective. This means that we cannot always rely on our familiar partisan reflexes. Especially when dealing with an unexpected political development, we need to step back and revise our stance.

But thought and reflection take time. Our current modes of politics allow for neither.

Jong-Fast’s reaction was no democratic failure. It was an affirmation of one of democracy’s most important civic values: reasoned judgment.

Robert B. Talisse, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Leaders of NASA sit in an awkward position. While they are the head of a widely recognized organization, they’re often not the most famous individual in the agency. More people probably know the names of Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, the astronauts currently “stranded” on the International Space Station, than Bill Nelson, the current NASA administrator.

Astronauts might be the people most closely associated with NASA, but administrators are arguably more integral to getting programs off the ground.

As a space policy expert, I’ve seen the impact that individual NASA leaders can have on NASA’s success. They play a vital role in deciding what NASA does and how it does it, and they also help build political support for space exploration.

The role of the NASA administrator

NASA is an independent government bureaucracy, meaning that it does not fall under one of the cabinet departments – like the Department of State. As such, the leader of NASA is an administrator rather than a secretary.

Although the name differs, a NASA administrator has similar duties and responsibilities as a cabinet secretary. They help make decisions about which major programs and policies should be pursued and how they’re carried out. NASA administrators work with partners in industry, including the commercial space industry. They also represent NASA while presenting to Congress and during diplomatic relations with other countries.

NASA administrators are also accountable to elected officials. Administrators are appointed by the president but must be confirmed by the Senate. Congress has a great deal to say about the budget that NASA gets each year. They also must authorize major programs, like the Artemis program, which aims to return the U.S. and its partners to the Moon.

Although major decisions like these are often out of their hands, NASA administrators still have a lot of influence behind the scenes. James Webb, NASA’s second administrator, who held the office between 1961 and 1968, is often credited as being integral in maintaining political support for the Apollo program.

Dan Goldin, the longest-serving NASA administrator, helped save the International Space Station from cancellation in the early 1990s by convincing the Clinton administration to invite Russia’s participation.

As administrator in the early 2000s, Mike Griffin helped jump-start the commercial space industry by instituting the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. This program provided funding to companies who would first send cargo to the International Space Station, and then later, astronauts.

However, not all administrators are as productive as Webb, Goldin or Griffin. Richard Truly was fired from the post by George H.W. Bush in 1992 after disagreeing with the administration’s 1989 proposal to return the U.S. to the Moon.

Charles Bolden found controversy when he told Al-Jazeera that President Barack Obama instructed him to make outreach to Muslim countries one of NASA’s priorities.

Both Truly and Bolden were astronauts before becoming administrator. But that doesn’t mean that former astronauts are somehow worse in the position than people coming from other backgrounds. NASA administrators have historically had a wide variety of backgrounds, including scientists, engineers and even former members of Congress.

The current NASA administrator, Bill Nelson, is both a former senator and a former astronaut, having gone to space on the shuttle Columbia in January 1986.

Major questions ahead

No matter the administrator, the coming years will bring big decisions for whoever is next.

With the recent announcement that the around-the-moon mission of Artemis II is delayed until spring of 2026, NASA still has much work to do in its Artemis program. Major issues remain to be addressed with the crew vehicle, including problems with the capsule’s heat shield and electronic systems.

Further, the success of commercial space companies like SpaceX means there will be more pressure on NASA to find ways to reduce costs by leveraging the services of commercial companies.

More broadly, many other countries are looking to how the U.S. is operating in space. Aside from what some see as a new space race with China, questions about space debris, space traffic management and space resources will involve cooperation with other countries and will require administrator involvement.

Finally, the NASA administrator will have to contend with a recurring issue: fewer resources. Historically, NASA has been appropriated less money than necessary to carry out all the things it has been charged to do.

This situation leads to hard decisions about what kinds of missions to support. Space science and robotic exploration typically lose out to things like human spaceflight.

Even though the next administrator will need to make hard decisions, the next few years will be full of excitement as the U.S. and others pursue increasingly ambitious goals.

Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, Air University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.