|
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...
|
