June 23, 2007

The Politics of Puerility

As an unapologetically overeducated coast-dwelling lib'rul that is hopelessly—and intentionally—out of touch with middle American values (of sanctimony and hypocrisy), I have often mentioned my great contempt for the majority of (barely literate) voters that, despite reveling in their own incompetence and ignorance much as babies do in their own shit, continue to hold as much sway as the individuals who spend their time educating themselves on the candidates and issues. Despite this overt disdain, by and large, I had up till now dismissed them as merely a nuisance (as does a lot of political science literature), whose random vote, while irritating, would nevertheless be rendered irrelevant when the knowledgeable (few) cast their own votes—much like Wikipedia. However, a column (subscription required) in this week's Economist will likely prove to be disconcerting for those who choose to still believe that the idiots amongst us can be appeased (with US Weeklies and American Idol). I mean, just look what happened to Chamberlain and Daladier in Munich.

The column discusses a new book by GMU economist Bryan Caplan, entitled The Myth of the Rational Voter, that essentially argues the exact opposite of what the appeasers would have us believe: not only do uninformed voters not vote randomly, but they apply biases that actually make things worse. Incompetence and idiocy can be tolerated insofar as it does not affect anyone else (think: WWF), but when it starts to destroy the system in which we all must live, it is hardly acceptable.

So, what is to be done about the fact that [o]nly 15% of Americans know who Harry Reid is?¹ In other words, how do we reconcile Winston Churchill's famous aphorism: democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time, with George Bernard Shaw's:

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

—George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) Maxims for Revolutionists

Bleeding heart liberals (despite my association with the People's Republic of Berkeley, I do not consider myself one) would likely suggest that education is the key; yet, no amount of education—no matter how well-executed—can compensate for a systemic disinterest propagated by a culture that values how far you can throw a football more than how well you can read, write, or multiply. And while the solution I ventured last year (sort of) in jest, i.e., [d]isenfranchisement in this case is a good thing; sterilization would be better; euthanasia the ideal solution, may very well be appealing, it is ultimately just that: a joke, laudable only to the extent that its heinous proposal actually appeals to otherwise decent, liberal-minded individuals.

The real answer is that there is no answer. Fundamentally, democracy is government for the people, by the people, and that implicitly includes the unwashed masses. I know this, and I know it cannot be any other way (the Electoral College notwithstanding). And yet, I cannot help but wonder if it is so wrong to demand that those who determine our collective futures know something about what they are taking action upon. I mean, really, is that so much to ask for? Surely the ten year experiment in blogging should be evidence enough that just because every jerk-off on the street has the capability to pontificate on any subject that his or her heart (and probably, empty brain) desires, does not mean that any of their opinions is worth anything to anyone, including themselves.

Much the same could probably be said about this blog as well, but that's an entirely different story. At least I know who Harry Reid is, assholes.

¹ If you do not know who Harry Reid is, you illiterate, undereducated moron, you are in clear violation of the Idiots Need Not Apply policy. Please leave immediately.