Citizen Know-Nothings

George,

I think that the educational results we get are embarrassing and represent yet another significant human capital deficit. But, a test for voting rights is pretty hard to swallow. If you had attended my high school, you'd have a very good chance of not being allowed to vote if there the requirements were at all robust. The under-education of the US citizenry is something I became aware of by simply seeing how ignorant I am. Comparison of myself to a friend who grew up in Ireland was an excellent way to see the shortcomings with which I manage to get by. I am doing alright, but I ain't learned.

I think you are talking, of course, about a low bar here, not the requirement of being a learned person, but. A test like that for a driver's license wouldn't do us much good. That method is to memorize a set of facts and simple techniques and squeak by. Have you noticed how horrible the average American's driving skills are? And we only test once, then you just pay the fee every so many years with no further testing. Hell, you almost don't need to be able to see.

I agree that who we give the right to vote to (Let's not talk about who can hold office!) is shocking and just not good enough, but what a huge and pervasive problem. The US suffers from a wide-spread low-grade case of brain rot. I'd love to see us smarten up, but I have little hope. Very little.

[It's obviously a very rough idea, Peter, but still... a low bar is perhaps better than none. Think of all those who are kept off the roads because they fail a driver test! And whatever happened to the "civics" courses they used to teach in High School? g.]

8 out of 10. Knew that there is an odd number of Supreme Justices to avoid deadlocked decisions, but guessed 7 based on vague memories of photos of old white guys in black robes in a row. Got Thomas Paine on the brain and he wouldn't go away to allow Jefferson to pop up.

I don't think the owners of the system would allow a mimimum competancy test for elections.

The last thing they want is an educated electorate capable of discerning that there is no significant difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

[Yes, David, but you're British — you're not expected to know all this stuff. g.]

The problem with excluding the undereducated is two-fold. On one hand it will encourage a reduction in education in places where voting is bad for the incumbents such as the so called Red States.

And on the other hand, it encourages states to indoctrinate rather than educate so that their, now "educated", populus will vote "correctly".

Voting, unfortunately, is not really an important part of the US political process, though it's touted as the key to democracy. The electoral college can supersede the popular vote nullifying any pretense of democracy.

Add to that the ability for politicians to do, pretty much, whatever they please — with such things as Mr Bush's PD 51 for new rules vis-a-vis continuity of government — the notion of rulership being democratic is nonsensical.

Why would the sort of politicians in power today vote for a more informed electorate? It would be totally against their interests. A passive, ignorant, and "bread and circuses" population suits them perfectly.

Democracy makes sense in a small New England village, where "cream" can actually rise, and where people's characters are known. But democracy in a very heterogeneous collectivity numbering tens of millions is sheer fantasy, and an open door for the usual political dog and pony shows, in which the most ambitious and cunning men tend to prevail — certainly not the best men. In a commercial-industrial society like ours, it simply makes for a cooperation between money and political power. We are a "lobbocracy" verging on a plutocracy. "Democracy" in the large "first world" countries simply leads openly to what is progressively the case behind the scenes — namely a species of tyranny, as was pointed out more than two thousand years ago. As for the less "developed" countries — a brutal expression if ever there was one — democracy is equally a farce, a sop for the masses, while the monied and landed rentier elites cooperate with the "developed" countries to have their countries looted for their resources, without which the "first world' would not enjoy their vaunted "high standard of living" — a telling phrase, which shows you the scale of values prevailing in our day.

Yes, then only quality people could vote. I will bet voting machines could get a perfect score.

[Actually, I suspect such a scheme, for example, would benefit blacks in the South — three hundred pound behemoths worried about getting their next box of Krispy Kremes from the local Piggly Wiggly (yes, it is a real regional chain store) wouldn't care. More an equalizer than not. g.]

Democracy: a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a form of equality to equals and unequals alike. — Plato

[Thanks, David! It's incumbent upon us to try to fix things. g.]

I read in this week's international Guardian that Goldman Sachs et alii are up to their old tricks again already. I don't have the paper here, so can't quote accurately, but they expect to share some BILLIONS of bonus money this year among 4000 or so employees.

My point? For years these firms have been absorbing the best and the brightest from the Ivy League. Yet they don't appear to act in the public interest as a general rule!

Is it intelligence we are looking for here? General knowledge? While they may be necessary, they are demonstrably not sufficient. Somehow the elites, if they are to rule, must be trained to act ethically.

The Chinese did it for centuries by soaking their leadership in the Confucian classics. Worked to a degree, but the cost was in the end enough to bring them down (at least temporarily). Is there another way?

Re: Democracy: a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a form of equality to equals and unequals alike. — Plato

You omitted Plato's conclusion: democracy is inevitably temporary and leads to tyranny. The problem is the essentially illusory nature of the concept to begin with. As for a republic, as Franklin observed, "if you can keep it." This was a time when the population was small and homogeneous. A republic in respect of collectivities numbering millions, and manipulated by powerful interests controlling the mass media, is as illusory as democracy, because the electorate is not really in a position to evaluate who they are voting for. That is why we have such luminaries as politicians, and why the powerful corporate and financial interests run the country with the politicians as their lackeys, thoroughly bought and compromised.

[As I keep saying, there's no good reason to just give up. g.]

A quite bizarre response to failings in civic education.

To suggest earned suffrage is the answer to this failing is to offer Heinleinian idealism an authority it does not really deserve. (Though I highly recommend Heinlein's greatest living interpreter's latest work Starship Troopers 3.)

Democracy is literally rule by the people, if you go down the the pitiful 'rights and responsibilities' route you stand to replace rights with privilege.
Pre Democratic history does not commend this.
Modern populations already endure lifelong education programmes through the highly regimented information system described as the mainstream media. The poor quality of the education provided is the problem, not the very limited means to express political will.
How you would measure and moderate such a system would be a considerable challenge in itself.

A decent political education would be a fairly alarming thing. You would need a curriculum that encompassed the work of William Blum, C. Wright Mills and Carrol Quigley for a start, and a structure that would cope with the inevitable rise in teen suicide.

Intellectual qualification shows its limits at the top, I doubt your previous two term president GB Jr. (someone one could confidently describe as having earned his juniority) would have passed this particular test, while the current one would sail through it.

The problem is that both are equally steeped in and limited by the nostrums and structures of our times and in a blind test would be indistinguishable.

Yours, a huge fan of EP.

Re: As I keep saying, there's no good reason to just give up.

George, to see black where there is black and white where there is white and gray where there is gray is called "objectivity." Adequatio rei et intellectus.

If knowing the truth causes someone to "give up," that is an entirely different issue. It can equally cause men to fight harder — and certainly more effectively. One can do nothing of real value without the truth, without an adequate grasp of objective reality.

[Point well taken. g.]

Adaequatio rei et intellectus. Lovely, haven't seen that one since A Guide for the Perplexed by E. F. Schumacher, one of the most useful books I've ever read.

While I agree there is no good reason just to give up, it seems to me that we are in need of some defined alternatives. The last time this happened, the world was buzzing with them. A cousin of mine became a raving Communist in the '30s, for instance. This time, what have we got? The Greens?

[That's exactly right, David. Our job is to think about, articulate, and work out alternatives. g.]

OK, if we are to work out alternatives, how about it? I think we can all agree that my Communist cousin martyred himself to a vain cause. I have suggested that Confucianism isn't a starter. Anybody else got something?

(Come to think of it, maybe my cousin wasn't as wrong as all that. He died on the Long March.)

It's always frustrating to see the popular vote in any Western democracy going to the best PR campaign. The lack of interest and consideration with which most people vote is downright scary.

However, the problem with a qualifying restriction on voting rights is that this would add one more thing to be manipulated. The problem with any enforcement problem is "who watches the watchers". So in this case, who watches to make sure that the powerful don't rig the qualification process to ensure their power?

One possible solution to the problems of mass democracy noted here is secession :

http://www.amconmag.com/postright/2009/07/03/celebrate-secession/

Not only does this allow the electorate a greater say over the affairs of their own smaller, local government; it also provides for a 'quarantine' when voters of a particular state enact bad or unwise laws.

[Personally, I like the idea of secession — perhaps especially for the upper northeastern states... g.]

Re succession: As one whose ancestors fought against this particular succession, I am somewhat biased... Actually it has always seemed to me that the US might have turned out a much better place if the values my ancestors believed in were upheld in the face of the challenge posed by a group of disgruntled taxpayers! The habit of government and tax hatred has not done your country that much good.

A less controversial problem with small countries is that they tend to get beaten up by bigger ones. We know.

[Just fyi, a lot of people misunderstand the U.S. anti-tax history. The real story is that it was slave holders who didn't want taxes because they feared central authority. Nothing to do with disgruntled Bostonians. The book to read is American Taxation, American Slavery by Robin L. Einhorn (University of Chicago Press, 2006). The Press was kind enough to send me a review copy but for some reason Robin couldn't quite commit to an interview. g.]

My understanding of the tax complaint behind the Boston Tea Party (I am foreign but lived in the U.S. and did my two years of "U.S. History") is that the issue was not with paying taxes but with the East India Company (Goldman Sachs of its day ... totally dominating the British government) being exempt from those taxes.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

This exchange has all been great to follow and serves to confirm my sentiments regarding America's future and the issue of people casting ballots based on superficial and stupid misinformation. Ah well. "Thanks so much for that."

A question to add to the stew: What is the effect of the mandatory vote (it is so, isn't it?) in Australia?

As for secession, I had a college (yeah, I did that) classmate from the South who did declare that the North should have let the South secede. Why? So the North could go start something whenever an economic boost was called for. Not bad thinking. I've been rooting for partition for a few years now. Since Bush took office, actually.

As for the idea of giving up... I don't think I know all the truth, so I haven't given up yet. But I am having a lot of trouble acting content while knowing what I do know.

I teach Civics in a Connecticut high school — a one semester required course for graduation. I think we do a pretty good job with the students, and they're usually very interested when we challenge them on their perceptions of their "rights." They know they have them, they're just not interested in how they were gotten, that is earned through struggle and a gradual understanding of the dignity of all men and women.

It appears to me that the deeper penetration of the ideals we like to believe we hold as Americans comes from maturity and education. Teachers and students rise to the challenge because it's their job and it's a discussion about an ideal, textbook world. But citizens would too — at least significantly more so — if they didn't perceive the system of the "real world" to be stacked against them — they feel isolated and powerless. As others have stated, the media and our own struggles in the 'dog-pit of the American economy' don't allow us the time and informed facts we need for a democracy to function in an advanced and large society. I would propose two remedies and try them before giving up. First, we need campaign finance reform that removes, or at least significantly reduces corporate and big-money interests from the election process. The second is media reform; more media outlets must be dedicated to getting a multitude of ideas out into the mainstream. While minimal, none of these are simple and to do them right would require a dedicated process that still wouldn't be perfect. However, I believe they represent a minimalist's step in the right direction for our democracy in the 21st Century.

As often seems to happen with this sort of discussion, we are going off track. Mea culpa.

What I was hoping, and maybe George was hoping, judging from his comments, was that someone could start us along the road of developing positive solutions to the perennial problem of the absence of moral compass in society's leadership. Nothing anyone has tried has worked so far!

To effect a change, two things are necessary: principles upon which to base action, and the capacity to take the effective action. As regards the former, the modern world is a Tower of Babel: it generates a progressive dissolution, like a chemical solvent. As regards the latter, nowadays, more than ever, "power comes from the barrel of a gun."

[But the pen is mightier than the sword! g.]

Failing any great solutions to the leadership morality problem, which was not unexpected as many great minds from Plato on down have tried and failed, I do agree with the minimalist suggestion of a sharp limit on campaign expenditure.

We have one in this country. In the last general election the budget for advertising for a national party was $18 million. Yet the election was possible.

Combine this with George's expanded legislature, and it would probably be surprising what would happen.

It occurs to me, thinking about McNamara and the arguments by military philosophers about morality as a factor in war (from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz), that moral fiber contributes equally to the success of a state over the long term. One could argue, for example, that the Godless communism of the Soviet Union fell apart, not because of its irreligiosity per se, but because of its explicitly amoral outlook. Similarly, that Chinese communism has managed to survive in large measure because of its underlying Confucian base. Here in the U.S. we fought a civil war over the moral compromises in our founding institutions — and barely remained intact. But how much of our initial moral bias has carried forward? How much has tended to wither away or been replaced by artificial mob incitement?

I think that any moral bias or claimed morality we have written into our founding documents has been compromised by claims of being free to capitalize, capitalize and capitalize. Our freedoms are guaranteed for individuals, right? The goodness and rightness of persons is assumed to a degree, then must be policed. That's where the compromising begins. And those with power (money) achieve stunning results by manipulating the system and the proles. Usually by artificial mob incitement.

Drill, baby, drill indeed.

How to get humans to appreciate humanism? I dunno. Stop treating people like (bleep).

Aha! We are getting somewhere.

If amorality is the problem, perhaps it is time to consider the roots of amoral thinking. Amorality is a postulate — the logical/factual case for it is weak to nonexistent. I will put this more strongly — it is a faith statement.

Yet ever since the 18th century it has been given vast credence. It has been considered the only rational position. Weird!

Waitaminute!

Is it being suggested that not knowing right from wrong is considered a rational position. And that it has been so for about 200 years? Hunh? There most certainly are people who do the "wrong" thing. And often. And lots of them.

Of course, who says what's right and what's wrong? That becomes a problem as soon as there is more that one person involved.

So how do we get people to do the... Whoops, trapped up against the word "right." How do we get people to stop treating other people like "bleep." That is the question.

I live in Australia where we have a mandatory vote. I've been a citizen for about 3 years now ...

I think the mandatory vote helps but it helps more for people who would have thought more deeply about their choices in any case.

We also have a complex preferential proportional voting system (rather than simply first past the post) which cuts both ways. Yes, minor parties are more likely to be represented. However, the system is complex and what happens is that each political party has volunteers at each polling booth who hand out "how to vote cards" so that their party faithful will vote as a block.

I live in the equivalent of a Republican stronghold (although we call our conservatives the Liberal Party — note the capital "L"!). Around these parts we believe in trickle-down economics, border protection and the rule of law (especially applied to physical crime). Never you mind that economic data over 30 years disproves trickle down, that we live on a remote island with incredibly harsh conditions across much of it and that corporate crime doesn't count here either.

So, while I think the mandatory vote is a good thing (I mean morally, if you're a citizen surely that is the very least duty you can perform), I agree that campaign finance is the first thing to address. When your legislators are mostly millionaires either because that's how they got there or because they've made that by being in power, there is a real problem. Moreover, when you keep hearing that popular policies are "politically infeasible" then you only have to draw a very very short bow to see how the campaign contributions distort the process.

In reply to Peter — to prove my point about the intellectual dominance of immorality I believe I only need mention the "Economic Man" who, despite enormous evidence to the contrary remains an absolutely foundational postulate or faith statement of our modern priests — the economists.

You yourself support my contention when you ask "who says what's right and what's wrong?" Morality is not relative, in fact it is one of the most simple and absolute things we know. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I think I understand and agree with what David is saying. But I am confused a little by his answer.

I thought, first of all, that we were talking about amorality, not immorality. And I, of course, must now ask what the difference is. I have looked it up and there is a big difference. I feel smarter now.

As for the intellectual dominance of a- or im-morality in the economic sphere, I take your citing economists as our priests is either a reach or a bit of sarcasm.

My priests are more like George Carlin and Kurt Vonnegut. But that's for another thread.

Suffice it to say, I do not share any faith in any statement that economic dominance is right or good. I do believe that economic dominance and greed have many reliable by-products such as: Human and environmental suffering.

Wow. Deep. At least for a clown like me.

And for the last, Vonnegut discussed the Beatitudes (in "A Man Without a Country") as a much better set of guidlines than the Ten (Carlin reduces this to two) "Commandments." Of course do unto others... is an excellent way to check oneself.

In virtually all societies, from the first Fertile Crescent cities on down, there has been a class of individual either at the top or closely associated with those at the top, whose function it is to justify their actions (however unjustifiable and self serving) by reference to some form of Higher Authority. By this definition it is clear that the economists are the priests of our society. Their particular Doctrine is even less attractive than most.

BTW, the Golden Rule is by no means exclusively Christian:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[Note that for the earliest known evidence of worship there does not appear to have been an associated city. g.]

The unattractiveness of selfish and greedy behavior and the justification of that behavior is clear. And to excuse it as beyond one's personal responsibility (by assigning that responsibility to a higher authority) is immoral. Or amoral. Or delusional.

For many in modern society, proclamations of a higher calling to be greedy might be the closest thing to a fundamental belief system there is. But priests?

Now, are you saying that Paul Krugman is a priest? And Ben Bernanke? Seems that it would be more accurate to say that crank economists that get it wrong (Friedman?) are Heretics, not Priests.

As for the Golden Rule being universal, as opposed to Christian, I absolutely agree. Reciprocity and collective responsibility are just, good and righteous.

But, if you like comedy, do listen to or watch Carlin's Ten Commandments bit. Colorful language and content alert.

I believe the label "priest" fits Krugman and Bernanke very well. In their honest moments they admit that their understanding of the economy is no greater than a priest's understanding of God. It is too complex for anyone to understand! Yet they make proclamations about it, and urge others to follow their advice, and the powerful do. Just like they used to listen to priests.

Heresy and fundamentalism are part of the economist's world as much as they are part of the world of more accurately self described priests.

I will look for Carlin.

[George Carlin is (was) great! g.]

Some time during the night it came to me that psychological testing might be part of the answer. For instance there is now a fairly reliable test for psychopathy. All aspiring politicians should be made to take it.

[Ha! g.]

[George Carlin is (was) great! g.]

What exactly was great about him? He was a foul-mouthed, self-righteous, impertinent, presumptuous, low-minded, panderer to the most vulgar, media-driven proclivities of our impossibly ignorant and vulgar populace. A classic subversive influence. "...in the fatness of these pursey times..."

[Exactly! And very funny, too. g.]