The words “reason” and “rationalization” appear to be very similar in their meaning. In fact, they are names for thought processes that are total opposites.

The process of “reason” starts with no assumption of a conclusion. Information is verified to be fact, other non-verified assumption and opinion is rejected, and a conclusion is determined that is totally supported by the known facts.

The process of “rationalization” starts with a conclusion. Information is then sorted based on whether it supports the conclusion or not, not on the basis of how factual it is. 

However incorrect the conclusion is, there is no amount of fact or truth that will change the conclusion because it will be rejected as fake.

Our ongoing national division over the validity of the 2020 presidential election perfectly illustrates these two processes at play. 

A sitting president that can’t accept losing starts a rationalization process based on his assumption he must have been cheated. Members of his political party join the process, because they want to stay in his favor and they want a member of their party in the White House.

Meanwhile, our election process and vote counting is re-examined for potential error or corruption. None is found.

 Our judicial process is based on examining evidence for its factual accuracy. Hearsay and unsupported opinion is thrown out. A conclusion is arrived at based on facts only. Which is why over 60 cases of election corruption were completely rejected. 

This is also why lawyers, who received the best education our country can offer, and knowingly used that education to advance baseless legal arguments, are now being prosecuted.

My father passed away last month. I think the most remarkable thing about him was his effort and willingness to evolve, even into his advanced age. He applied an engineer’s disciplined logic, his own life experience, and the lessons of his faith to the issues of the moment.

Dad grew up in an America that was openly and unashamedly racist. The n-word wasn’t uncommon in social gatherings. When he was drafted into the Army he served with a Black man, the first with which he had ever had any personal experience. 

He evolved to reject prejudices of all kinds.

My dad was the grandson of a German immigrant. Throughout the late 1930s and the following war years, he endured schoolyard taunts about being a Nazi. As an adult, he found parallels between his family’s experience and the immigration and asylum issues of today. 

Accordingly, his views when he died reflected a deep empathy for those just looking for a better chance at life.

Those schoolyard taunts fire-tempered my dad. He abhorred bullies in all walks of society. If he saw something he thought was unfair, then he was going to have a voice. 

He could be loudly and firmly outspoken in his advocacy for the poor, the weak, the disadvantaged or the marginalized. Even if he lost the battle, he thought the right fight was worth the effort.

When I would come home from college I would try to talk to my dad about issues I was just starting to become aware of. We usually disagreed. He often rejected my idealism because I hadn’t joined the workforce. I didn’t have skin in the game.

For decades now, we have been in agreement on most issues. I didn’t change – he did. He continually made the effort to be informed, digging to learn the truth from all the noise and hot air. 

He made the effort to practice empathy. Growing up in poverty and facing prejudice conditioned him to walk in others’ shoes and consider their perspective.

His faith included fear of God. As he reflected on Jesus’ lessons, he examined his thoughts on issues. If they were weak rationalizations – not defined by reason – he feared having to explain himself before his Maker. 

I pray those discussions are going well for him now.

I write this column, in part, because I am my father’s son. He was proud of this column – not always because of the specific things I said but because I had a voice. He was a model for the courage to use your reason and have a voice.

The other reason I write is for me. Rationalization has a hard-to-resist allure. A conclusion is arrived at easily and provides peace of mind, even if it is the wrong conclusion and possibly even unjust. 

I put my thought process out there for all of you to see. You can challenge it and your challenge might help me realize what I thought was reason is really rationalization.

I write to invite you to do the same. My dad did continually and I am grateful for his example.