In a poll 35% of Americans thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different policies or didn’t know if they were the same or different. (New York Times)
Few Americans are accurately informed about what is going on politically at home or abroad. They are told Obamacare is “bad” and should be scrapped, but are quite supportive of the Affordable Care act that offers help to people with pre-existing conditions and healthcare to their young sons and daughters. These are people who are not taught about the Constitution, and have little knowledge of American history. We are told that few people read newspapers any more, on line or not; those who keep up with events increasingly rely on social media, and we know how reliable that is. I don’t think you can have a democracy if the population is ignorant and doesn’t care. But, of course, we don’t have a democracy; we now have rule by oligarchy, and a frightening number of people don’t know what “oligarchy” means, nor do they seem to care.
The America we thought we knew no longer exists.
(Reading this through again I thought ” for heavens sake find something cheerful to say! The daily drumbeat of bad news makes one want to tune out completely, and we have a duty not to do that”).
The obvious way to fix American ignorance is through the education system. As part of citizenship lessons, people should be taught the basics of government and politics at school, if they aren’t already. The only problem with that is accusations of bias in the curriculum, from both liberals and conservatives.
But apart from that, it’s up to people to educate themselves. If they choose not to take a keen interest in politics, that is a perfectly legitimate choice, in the same way as it is reasonable not to be interested in science or philosophy despite those subjects being crucial to our understanding of the world. However, people who choose to remain ignorant cannot claim to have just as legitimate opinions as the experts. This increasingly pervasive anti intellectualism has to stop, and the opinions of the most knowledgable must be given the greatest regard, even if they differ considerably from the opinions of the wider public. I would also recommend that the wilfully ignorant refrain from voting.
I have to ask, who are the “experts” to whom you refer? It seems to me that if you mean those who know what’s really going on, then I would argue that they are, these days, motivated by self-interest, not by their concern for the “general good”. There are a number of people who are educated and knowledgeable about, for example, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc., but they do not seem to the ones who are taking the reigns of power, or doing much to fix ignorance, American or otherwise. A lot of them work for corporations where people like George Soros, or the Koch brothers, etc. play the tunes the politicians dance to. Those who are in power don’t really want an educated or informed electorate. An educated and informed electorate would likely be running the politicians in Washington out of town at gunpoint. Sometimes I’m inclined to think we’ve made much ado over nothing in regard to the 2nd Amendment. We haven’t really used it for the purposes for which the Founding Fathers put it in there. One other point is the difficulty facing the “common” man/woman who really does care and really does want to be informed. That difficulty is ascertaining what the facts really are; or, what is truth? Too much of what used to be called journalism is now tainted with bias if not incompetence. The big picture is way more complex than a distinction between those who care (to be informed) and those who don’t care. Is a misguided intellectual more or less dangerous to democracy than an apathetic fool? Of course, this is part of the reason we have a republic, not a democracy. We’re supposed to be able to identify and elect people who will protect our best interests. When was the last time we had the means, or even the choices, to do that?
You make a good point to be fair. We should always bear the self-interests of people who give us information. We should never uncritically accept anything, simply because someone better qualified than us has told us so.
Everyone to an extent is motivated by self interest. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand what those interests are and how they may affect what something is telling you.
I think where I differ from you is that just because people are partly motivated by self interest, doesn’t necessarily mean that what they say it wrong. A railway company could argue for government investment in the railways as a matter of self interest. But that wouldn’t mean that railway investment is a bad thing.
So by all means, treat any opinion with caution. Think for yourself, and come to your own conclusion. But I would strongly warn against dismissing an opinion expressed by the academic community out of hand, particularly in matters of science.
I’m not sure we’re actually at odds about anything. I felt compelled to make some remarks about “experts” and the difficulty of verifying their credentials and motives. Lawyers (and probably others) are fond of the quip that an “expert” is anybody from out of town wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase. When it comes to government, I could argue that the best form is the “benevolent dictator”. This takes the concept of “expert” to a logical extreme. The argument against this form of government is the old maxim that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. But, what if it didn’t? Take one person who actually knows what’s best (or right, or good, or true) and give him/her the power to make it happen. Wow. Unfortunately, such a leader would be in constant peril from those who would covet the power of the position more than the power to do good. But, I digress (I love and hate that phrase!). Spend a half hour at Fox and a half hour at CNN and it’s evident neither is presenting all the facts, much less everything a person needs in order to make informed decisions. Combining the two helps, but one still has the challenge of separating wheat from chaff. Theoretically, my education has given me tools to weigh evidence, think analytically and make intelligent judgements. Theoretically, I care enough to take the time to do this. But maybe I care more about impressing my friends with my knowledge of Super Bowl MVP’s of the past 25 years. So, you’re right about the importance of education (but don’t get me started about academia and liberals); and the need for experts who can distill the world and give us the grist (as opposed to picking certain grist in order to persuade us to their bias). One more essential is a citizenry that’s serious about citizenship. And now I’m scratching my head wondering if there’s a thesis somewhere in my remarks. I think this subject matter would support several lengthy theses! I’ll just conclude with this: today’s America suffers a vacuum that once was filled by the likes of William F. Buckley, Gore Vidal, Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley and Chet Huntley.