TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Most people are pretty gullible and ignorant when it comes to politics and history

Most people are pretty gullible and ignorant when it comes to politics and history

Agree or disagree?

If you agree, what do you think that says about democracy and the possibility of a democratic system maintaining a good government?

Oh, definitely agree. We've had the most widely covered and scrutinized election in American history this year, and yet there are still multitudes of people that don't have the first clue about either candidate's positions on issues - much less either candidate's biography.

It's a depressing thought, but one must take it on faith that there is a critical mass of thoughtful, educated individuals that can swing an election one way or the other.

Even within government, though, a blind eye is often turned toward history or consequence - people are so focused on the present that they lose sight not only of history, but also of the future.

What is the point of these types of discussions on a trance chill out forum? I'm sure you will get some interesting responses, but pretty soon it will sway of course and people will start posting modified pictures of say Tiesto.

I think if you really want a lively debate and want to challenge yourself you should head on over to some of the graduate political science/philosophy/history departments at your local Uni of Texas school or better yet Rice? You should pose some of these questions to the PhD or Masters candidates.

quote:

Originally posted by Utencil I think if you really want a lively debate and want to challenge yourself you should head on over to some of the graduate political science/philosophy/history departments at your local Uni of Texas school or better yet Rice? You should pose some of these questions to the PhD or Masters candidates.

I talk about these kinds of things with people at my own college. I use board discussions as supplements to my in-person ones.

it's painful that politics is only a popularity contest.

it's also painful that people are encouraged to "get out and vote" rather than "study the issues and vote or don't bother", imo

i'll guarantee that only 1% of the voters have actually read the real text in the propositions. the rest glance at the two line "summary".

When you say "people", do you mean Americans?

It's not the same everywhere in the world you know, even here I find people in general seem to understand party platforms pretty damn well before making their decision.

Many of the voters here are lifelong party members and know the candidates like the back of their hand.

right, i do.

what are the voter turnouts in quebec? (for the real - non french language issues, lol)

in the US it's generally quite low.

Agree. Especially for Americans as someone who lives here despite the Union Jack in my profile.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's not the same everywhere in the world you know, even here I find people in general seem to understand party platforms pretty damn well before making their decision.

Then again, the news here covers it more. They mainly talk about policies and such, wheras US news coverage feels more like watching entertainement tonight, where they'll dig up the most insignificant piece of gossip and make a contraversy out of it. I think it has a lot to do with how people choose/view their leaders. Over here people tend to view the PM as somekind of large buisness CEO, and we vote in consideration. He's not particularly sacred. In the US, the president is seen as somekind of heroic, symbolic, almost non-human cultural figure.

quote:

Originally posted by Project-K Then again, the news here covers it more. They mainly talk about policies and such, wheras US news coverage feels more like watching entertainement tonight, where they'll dig up the most insignificant piece of gossip and make a contraversy out of it. I think it has a lot to do with how people choose/view their leaders. Over here people tend to view the PM as somekind of large buisness CEO, and we vote in consideration. He's not particularly sacred. In the US, the president is seen as somekind of heroic, symbolic, almost non-human cultural figure.

Truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Utencil I think if you really want a lively debate and want to challenge yourself you should head on over to some of the graduate political science/philosophy/history departments at your local Uni of Texas school or better yet Rice? You should pose some of these questions to the PhD or Masters candidates.

What's wrong with Masters candidates in Virginia?

I may be living in _ starting next fall.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I may be living in Virginia starting next fall.

"Communist Country" or "Real Virginia"?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov "Communist Country" or "Real Virginia"?

Not sure what you mean by that.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Not sure what you mean by that.

I can't watch videos.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I can't watch videos.

John McCain's brother called Northern Virginia nothing but "Communist Country", and when asked for a response, a McCain aide said that everyone knows Northern Virginia isn't "Real Virginia".

Needless to say, it pissed off a lot of people up here.

Re: Most people are pretty gullible and ignorant when it comes to politics and history

At the risk of stating the obvious: I agree. It gets worse, however.

Even among those who are neither gullible nor ignorant when it comes to history or politics generally, all are ignorant to a significant degree about at least some subjects of political salience, whether it's economics, medicine, engineering, or moral philosophy. That wouldn't be a problem if democracy, as it ideally would, allowed us to pool our knowledge; the reason it is a problem is that most people form opinions about issues before learning enough about the relevant subject matter for their opinion to have any value, and, moreover, they will stubbornly cling to their original point of view even when confronted with information that clearly and convincingly shows that they are in the wrong. The consequence is that the economist's knowledge is often rejected by people on issues of economics, and rather than knowledge being 'pooled,' a preponderance of ignorance overwhelms the expertise we might otherwise benefit from.

Relatedly, people tend to form opinions first and then rationalize justifications for them, rather than forming opinions after a reasonably circumspect examination of available information. To some extent, beliefs which form the basis of political identity later in life are acquired during childhood. We don't allow children to vote, and with good reason. But to the extent that adults use their stronger faculties to merely rationalize, rather than revise, beliefs formed during childhood, the distinction seems quite irrelevant.

I think what that all says about democracy is that, while it has probably been the most effective system of government that man has created thus far, it (a) should not be regarded as some sort of abstract ideal, valuable in itself; (b) should not be presumed to be the "final evolution" of human government; and (c) has serious underlying flaws which, so far as I can see, cannot easily be rectified.

All that said, it is certainly theoretically possible for a democratic system to maintain a good system of government (note, however, that the same could be said of, say, monarchy.) In democracy, however, this typically consists of subverting the democratic process. The more the system is subverted, the better the intentions of the subversives, and the more able they are to carry out those intentions, the higher the probability that the government of a democratic system will do good.

There are a variety of ways that such subversion could be accomplished. In the U.S., for example, the two-party system effectively blocks the ability of voters to decide issues upon which the two parties agree. If the two parties agreed on all issues of significant political relevance, creating the pretense of choice through vigorous debate regarding largely irrelevant issues, then the democratic ideal would be effectively subverted. If the parties agreement reflects good policy, then the chances of effective government are relatively high. To some extent, I would say that this subversion is highly effective in the U.S. on many, though not all, issues of political relevance. Unfortunately, the parties' agreements rarely reflect good policy, and hence tend to create bad, rather than good, government.

Increasing voter apathy to high enough levels might also subvert democracy effectively, provided we could somehow match the level of apathy to the degree of ignorance. But, in practice, apathy tends to overrepresent extreme views, since those with extreme views are most likely to want to participate. The result is hardly effective...

quote:

Originally posted by - T - i'll guarantee that only 1% of the voters have actually read the real text in the propositions. the rest glance at the two line "summary".

Frankly I think that anyone who believes that what's written in a manifesto is what will actually happen is gullible. What a candidate says to get the position and what they do whilst in that position are often mutually exclusive, and yet they'll still often get voted back into power despite failing on the majority of their promises because of the bullshit reasons why people vote.

Re: Most people are pretty gullible and ignorant when it comes to politics and histor

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Agree or disagree? If you agree, what do you think that says about democracy and the possibility of a democratic system maintaining a good government?

When power begets authority, democracy suffers.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.