Before I get blasted for what I'm about to say, just remember, this blog is a place for me to work out my thoughts.
Last week I had a very brief conversation on Twitter on why black people are not excited to vote in the upcoming elections. The person with whom I was tweeting said that many blacks feel as though they have not been heard or that their situation has not improved over the past two years. This answer baffles me because most black people voted for President Obama (and the House and Senate Democrats) and he has done many of the things that he promised to do. According to the President, these policies are having the effects he thought they would have, it's just moving a little slow. Like he told John Stewart, these things take time. (I personally disagree with the President's chosen path and I believe the effects of his policies merely reenforce my belief that these policies were bad ones.) When I tweeted similar remarks to my online interlocutor, he somewhat agreed, but commented that many people are ignorant of politics and economics and therefore they do not know where to properly place the blame for their current misfortunes.
It was this last statement that I found intriguing. If people are ignorant about the basics of politics and economics, is it really a good idea for them to be voting on economic and political matters? It would be like the time Balki (from Perfect Strangers) placed bets on football games by judging the strength of each team's mascots. He didn't know anything about the game of football. All he knew was that a dolphin was no match for a bear. This is clearly no way to determine who is most likely to win a football game. One must know the rules and objects of the game and then see which team has the components necessary to beat the other team.
Something similar seems to be needed in voting as well. I should know something of how economies are run in order to know whether the House and Senate candidates are offering good economic policies. I should know something about the mindsets and belief systems of our enemies in order to accurately assess a candidate's position on the current war in Afghanistan. In other words, it seems to me that we should be encouraging people to get educated in the areas necessary to make good voting decisions before we encourage them to get out and vote. This proposal might sound elitist, but doesn't it make sense?
Oh, I get it, you think you're better than me.
ReplyDeleteI actually never feel adequate to vote. But how much knowledge is really adequate? So, for example, if I read an introductory text on economics, is that really enough to know what would be good for the country, and, therefore, who to vote for? Clearly, I cannot become an 'expert' in every field necessary to make an educated decision.
What say you, Mr. Superior?
Also, I get your Balki reference, and I love it. But I also know that you are just trying to impress me with that reference.
ReplyDelete"Alex is keen" [know that reference].
It's funny that you should mention being an "expert" because my first example was one where I would need to be an expert to make a decision. I don't think political decisions require expert knowledge, but some basic competency seems appropriate. This does mean that there will be people who are "superior" to others in terms of what knowledge they possess and what that knowledge allows them to do.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you got me on the "Alex is keen" reference. I want to say Family Ties, but I'm not sure if that's right. I might have to google it.
I was going to do a "straight party" vote, but I can't seem to find the Thomist party anywhere in South Carolina.
ReplyDeleteWhat's funnier: the above joke or someone actually googling the Thomist Party?
You're correct: Family Ties!!!
But what counts as "basic competency"? What subjects should one read about to get this kind of basic knowledge?
I think some of your points are right on target. And though I would never come against people getting more education, I will say I don’t think it’s necessary to go and vote. If you are unsure of who to vote for then do a write in vote for Mickey Mouse, but go vote. When the politicians see we are voting then they will have to make changes. They will want to get that vote. Which means they will be out in the communities more educating people on how their plans will impact communities. So we can become more educated by going to the polls.
ReplyDeleteDavid, my fear is that politicians will educate us about their plans, but we will not have the resources to determine whether their plans are good ones or not. They can say, "here is my plan and it will do this for your community," but, if I don't know how to evaluate those plans, I can't critique them or know why those plans fail if they are elected.
ReplyDeleteSpike, I think googling the Thomist Party is much funnier. Also, I'm not sure what counts as basic competency.
Walter Williams demonstrates a little of what I am talking about in this post.
ReplyDeletehttp://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/10/06/politicians_exploit_economic_ignorance
incidentally, it is "Jon Stewart", not "John Stewart."
ReplyDeleteI'm just being elitist.
I was thinking of a different term for you...
ReplyDeletegenius?
ReplyDeletehandsome?
not quite, my man.
ReplyDeleteAs a potentially interesting philosophical aside, "because you can" is a reason for action among liberal philosophers. Hence, the anti-perfectionist slogan [not one that they necessarily proclaim]: "the right is prior to the good." Of course, they would specifically refer to this as 'liberty'.
ReplyDeleteOne non-theoretical problem with this view is that it makes people who strictly adhere to it sound childish. For example, a child might want to do some action X, his/her parent knows that X will cause harm. So, the parent says that the child should not do X. But the child does it anyway, simply because he/she wants to and can do it. I realize this is a bit over-simplified. But I think the basic idea is still relevant. And it gets slightly off the topic of voting, though it can relate.