Economics tells everyone to specialize for the most effectiveness and most money; why not for politics too?
If life has taught us anything, it is to specialize, specialize, specialize. It's basic economics; the more specialized you are, the better you are at your job, and the more money you make. If you're a systems analyst, you aren't trusted to judge the value of the many-worlds hypothesis (physics). If you're a middle school teacher, you aren't trusted to judge the moral philosophy of Marx and Nietzsche. If you're a theoretical physicist, you aren't trusted to give accurate nutritional advice. If you're a businessman, you aren't trusted to know how to design a building safely. If you're a janitor, you aren't trusted to give intelligent psychiatric advice.
So, if an American citizen is not an economist, a political philosopher, an ethicist, and a public administrator, why would he/she be trusted to make an intelligent decision on how the country should be run? Other fields require only the specialization of a single skill, of a single set of related skills. To judge the truthfulness and utilitarian usefulness of political and public policy actions, one would need not only specialize in ONE area, but in MANY areas, since government encompasses all things. Therefore, governing accurately, justly, and efficiently requires one to be not just intelligent, but super-intelligent and knowledgeable in all of the issues relating to political governance. However, the foundation of our government does not incorporate these people, nor does it even incorporate those who specialize in just one area related to public policy. Instead of raising the high standards necessary for a good government, we have counterintuitively lowered the standards; everyone can vote. Americans give legitimacy to the democratic system by obeying its results (or, if they don't obey the results, most often they claim election fraud, which is still demonstrating their underlying trust of the majority's decision). Isn't this just a noble lie, that democracy (or a representative republic) is the best regime?
Now, it is true that with less popular representation comes a greater chance of exploitation and oppression. However, keep in mind that Americans are already psychologically exploited to a great extent; we spent over 1 billion dollars total in the previous election, but how many of those people that contributed actually knew exactly what they were talking about, politically? (1 billion dollars is equal to the amount that some 33 thousand average people would contribute to their household income in a year.) All of the mindless, irrelevant campaign commercials exploit us intellectually, as well, giving many citizens their overconfident political hubris.
People today decide their vote from:
* listening to the biased, politically illiterate media, which knows next to nothing about critical thinking
* A few biased, meaningless 30-second advertisements made by the candidate themselves
* Peer pressure
just to list a few.
Do most voters understand logical fallacies, critical thinking, political philosophy, or even basic economics? Are they intelligent enough to make accurate judgments on how 300 million people should be governed? My answer is no. What do you think?
Note, when I'm talking about the idiotic voters, I am referring primarily to people like you, you Yahoo Answers people. Who else would spend their time on the anonymous internet answering useless questions for the purpose of gaining useless points? (and, in this politics section, for spreading ideology)
Asked By: Anonymous Cynic - 11/18/2008