The statement reminds me of an ideal scientist,rational but passionate, who generated his/her ideas carefully, rigorously and objectively, hospital to any critics for his/her precious theory to be improved; or an ideal reformer, struggle to pursue upmost good for human beings, who insists his policies but also open to any possible refinements.  However, it's quite obvious that such ideal models, although exist, cannot be applied to most common people. Considering the different stances, specific circumstances or environments, as well as various personalities, it's hard to conclude hastily that loyalty is positively related to criticism.    Given different personal or group interests to pursuit, people have usually become so defensive that they seldom question their ideas or policies, but assault other critics instead. Considering the one-party system in China, by maintain which Communists can keep longevity of ruling and seek for their own good; however, if the system is overtly questioned, it will lead to successive terrifying outcomes imperiling Communist Party's governance: some of its people would believe the critics and vacillate between one-party and multiparty systems, then become critical about the party's ruling, and even instigate relative activities to against the party. The ruling party knows exactly the above consequances brought about by critics and therefore highlights legitimacy of one-party system and assaults any open critics against it. Despite various interests that people argue for, certain circumstances or environments will arouse an atmosphere of fettish of some ideas or policies, leading people blind to any possible critics. China has witnessed a period of personality cult when Chairman Mao was in charge in 1960s. Mao's sayings were necessities for everyday life at that time, which people repeated fluently and referred to as axioms, and anyone who criticized any part of what Mao said would be regarded as enemies of the people. Once Mao considered it's better to have more children, Chinese population had shot up from 400 million to 1 billion in ten years. Under such overall atmosphere of blind loyalty, people believe but never questioned their belief.  Finally, personality also plays an important role in being critical or not to one's committed stance. Generally speaking, rationality helps to criticise but emotionality might lead to follow blindly.  Very much in the resemblance to facing contrasting views of others, being critical in one's own mind brings temporary discomfort, which people with different dispositions would react differently: as mentioned at the very beginning, for rational people who pursue ultimate truth, such "discomfortable" debate in his/her own mind pushes him/her to discover flaws and shortcomings in the ideas or policies, and thus, make up his own weakness to approximate the truth, which could, in turn, strengthen his/her commitment. However, for emotional or sensitive persons who pursue self-complacency or ultimate happiness, such discomfort should be eliminated at first glance, thus, any contrasting ideas, no matter from oneself or others, are forbidden; and therefore, defensive as a bigot is their choice towards committed ideas or policies.  People believe in ideas or policies for different reasons, for example, to satisfy self or group interest, being influenced by social forces,  or just to fulfill one's feelings, each of which would probably leads to blind loyalty to their commitment. However, only rational people who establish ideas for pursueing ultimate truth or equity would probably most critical to their committed ideas.