Your writer this past week was invited to contribute to yet another “grassroots” effort that would somehow bridge the divide between conservatives and libertarians on one hand and hardcore progressives on the other. Seems the answer to our contemporary information blitz resides in the accumulation of facts upon which we can all agree devoid of pesky concepts of morality, faith and centuries of collected learning. Oh, yeah, and a newly discovered concept of communication: “dialogue” deployed as a verb. Whatever.

It’s easy to doubt the sincerity of such requests when the goal posts are continuously tilted to the left by those who purposely derive a tremendous sense of self-satisfaction whenever they utter the phrase “separation of church and state.” Not for this Charlie Brown another kick attempt at the behest of lefty Lucys who inevitably pull the ball at the last moment. Funny how these efforts always surface when the power structure shifts.

Been there when it’s finally revealed the conversation is one-sided and, furthermore, done that. Yeah, we get it: Fox News, religious devotion and Tea Party principles are an egregious insult to the body politic while wealth redistribution, secularism and Occupy Wall Street and Resistance obstructionist tactics are all somehow defensible in a civil society. But now you wanna “dialogue” and, all-of-a-sudden, it’s the dawning of the Age of Aquarius after eight years of hogging the megaphone and telling the rest of us to take a hike. What’s really desired is another soapbox for liberal voices presumed marginalized but, in actuality, are still loud as ever.

The individual who made the initial query eventually confessed to not reading your writer’s weekly pearls yet professed a yearning to understand a differing point of view. Back in the day, with a little help from Elvis Costello, we’d call this lip service. Costello also made a remark about teachers telling white lies, but we’ll get to that later.

Readers may reasonably wonder what precisely rankles, and the answer is the anticipated waste of time and effort expended toward expressing yet again, albeit pro bono, the same thoughts and opinions already ignored in this space and elsewhere. This is all well and fine, it’s supposed, but a little distressing that self-awareness, sincerity and honesty got lost somewhere in the mix. Not to mention a modicum of consideration for another’s time, talent and income.

In a world awash in words — a veritable Tower of Babel — it’s common to hear pleas for guidance from the earnest and disingenuous alike. Where to turn? Who to read? The quick answer is read and watch whatever it is you find sufficiently informative. The marketplace of ideas is remarkably diverse. However, if all you read is the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times or any other source, you’ll find it impossible to define and defend your own opinions without quoting others verbatim. Sure, you can poke holes in the arguments of others (at best) or simply resort to snarky trolling (at worst), but you add nothing to the debate without critical thinking. It’s rhetoric devoid of first principles.

One needn’t be adept in every area of the humanities to develop critical-thinking skills, but a broad overview of philosophy, economics, history, political science and the arts certainly helps. Such an arsenal provides cultural touchstones for knowledgably weighing-in or asking intelligent questions on any number of contemporary subjects.

Critical thinking can be taught, but, seemingly, isn’t too often. Much of this might be attributed to an education system that appears to teach students what to think in a manner imperiously hostile to cultural norms, religious traditions and economic realities rather than how to think independently. Is it merely a coincidence that the progressives referenced directly and alluded to above are either employed by or retired from the local education industry?

Bruce Edward Walker (walker.editorial@gmail.com) is a Morning Sun columnist and freelance writer.