From time to time, I learn something from the reactions to my columns, even if they were written and rewritten over the course of a week as well as reviewed by my colleagues on the Opinion desk. The lesson I have learned from the reaction to my column last Thursday, about requiring that birth control be a part of health insurance, was compelling.

Either we as a society — and by that I mean all levels, from ourselves, to Iowa State University, to young people, to Iowa, and to the United States —are content to be the sloppiest debaters and hold the most slovenly-crafted opinions, or we place so much value on ends and so disregard the means by which we achieve those ends that we use huge blunt instruments to solve fine problems.

It is as if we drop atomic bombs on a city to remove the threat of one lonely soldier. The collateral damage to the issues of public debate from that attitude is enormous.

During my time at Iowa State, I took the two classes in constitutional law that the Department of Political Science offers. I learned many things from those classes, including the rules of several dozen Supreme Court cases, but the lesson that sticks most is how essential it is to be precise in case briefings. An exact understanding of what the issue is, how each party to a case argues it and how the justices argue their opinions, is necessary.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinions, for instance, always took more time to decode because they were, quite frankly, written sloppier than those of, say Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

In another class I read an essay from the 1970s by a theorist named Henry Fairlie. His point was that the hallmark or a good politician was his or her ability to see to the heart of the matter at hand. If an issue — inclusion of birth control in health insurance, for example — is so important that it needs to be dealt with by the power of law, it deserves us approaching it with cool level-headedness. That kind of important issue requires a fair, open critique rather than hot passions if their solutions are to be executed well.

Blunt instruments will not suffice. Think of a James Bond movie’s plot. Inevitably, Bond thinks he’s suave and has the situation under control. Then he gets distracted by an attractive woman and captured by his targets. As one Bond woman said, it’s “sex for dinner, death for breakfast.”

Dealing with complicated problems requires a certain amount of skill and talent. The lesson from Fairlie’s essay, “The Politician’s Art,” lies even in its title. It would be unfair to say what kind of person deserves to be a politician (especially on the basis of education level or economic class).

Instead, politics and effective political discussion requires some creativity in approaching problems rather than adherence to textbook scenarios that prescribe taking Y actions if X facts occur or fail to materialize. Applying that art and creativity requires discipline, elegance and precision. Some of you may disagree with my artistic tastes, but this difference applied to music is the difference between Mozart and atonal nonsense. In painting it is the difference between Michelangelo and the finger paintings my brother did when he was 3 years old.

Responsible opining requires doing homework — at home, mind you — before beginning an argument. You have to give the issue some analysis and thought, and look for or at some evidence, before your passions can become opinions.

Opinion and politics should walk hand-in-hand, but politics is more sublime than petty personal particularities of passion. Opinion should be of a higher, more durable caliber than people’s own emotions and impulses. Picking up on and arguing about keywords is insufficient; we have to read the whole thing or listen to the whole speech — and it should go without saying, we have to do so carefully— before deciding.

Tight, calm, time consuming thinking is essential for quality political discussion and progress.