Midterm elections
Phil Dillon, Emporia
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The midterm elections are fast approaching. Politicians will be inundating us with 30-second spots highlighting their candidacy or scandalizing their opponent’s. There will be millions, if not billions, of dollars spent.
One of the mantras that will inevitably creep into the discourse is the need for an informed electorate. At first blush the reasoning seems sound. A vibrant democracy requires an informed, intelligent electorate.
What is an informed, intelligent voter, anyway? I think I know what it’s come to mean to those who tout it. It means the man or woman who sees things their way and supports their candidate. For the liberal, the informed voter is the one who votes in accord with their hot buttons. For the conservative it means the one who votes in lock step with their platform. Each voting bloc assumes intelligence for itself and stupidity for its opponents.’
I’m not sure where that puts those of us who are beginning to question the value of the whole process.
It begs the questions. Are we really an informed, intelligent electorate? Or, is it all a grand myth, designed, like Rome’s bread and circuses, to keep the “rabble” happy? Is it even necessary to be informed and intelligent?
Recently, I took a civics literacy test sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.americancivicliteracy.org). The survey was brief, 33 multiple choice questions in all. Included in the survey were questions about our Constitution, our Bill or Rights, economics, political systems, etc. I took the test and did “OK,” proving myself to be every bit as unenlightened as the next guy.
In the report summary the Institute asked, “Do our colleges and universities nurture a national consensus built around those enduring principles necessary to maintaining a free, prosperous, and self-governing nation?”
The answer wasn’t particularly surprising.
“Colleges can produce graduates without having a significant impact on whether those students believe America’s founding documents remain relevant.”
Jay Leno has made the same point many times over in his “man on the street” interviews and questions. There are more than a few Americans who believe that our revolution started when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. It’s become so familiar that it’s now a new age adage — “Johnny can’t read; Johnny can’t write.”
Whose fault is it? Johnny’s? I don’t think so. The survey revealed that the test scores of respondents aged 18-34 were on par with those aged 35-44, and a bit lower than those aged 45-64. I suspect Johnny is an incurable learner and is just applying what he’s learned.
The Institute conducted an earlier survey in 2008, comparing the civic knowledge of “average Americans” to politicians/elected officials. While the results of college students weren’t surprising, the scores of politicians were absolutely astounding. It was bad enough to see that only 27 percent of the general public could correctly answer the question concerning taxes and government spending. It was frightening to think that only 22 percent of politicians answered the question correctly, that only 45 percent of them knew that only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, or that only 49 percent could identify our three branches of government. Overall, the politicians surveyed scored 44 percent on the survey, with a failure rate of 74 percent.
I guess we could take some comfort from the data, which mirror our current political demographics. Forty percent of office-holding respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 31 percent, as Republicans, 21 percent as Independents, and 8 percent as non committed. It appears that this is a case of equal opportunity ignorance.
Some comfort, eh? The very people who tell us we need to be informed, intelligent voters know less than we do. I guess, in economic terms, we get what we pay for.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton observed (Federalist Papers, No. 9) that “a firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States and as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
Look at how far we’ve come. We’re splintering into the very un-enlightened factions our Founding Fathers decried. It’s left versus right, tea partiers versus the established order, young versus old, poor versus rich, blue collar versus white collar, labor versus management. And, it’s all being cleverly disguised as enlightenment.
Is there any way out? A couple of things come to mind. Maybe we should just jettison the myth of the enlightened voter. Maybe we should all just boycott the next election altogether. Maybe it would be better if no one got elected.
Phil Dillon writes a blog, “Fires Along the Tallgrass,” http://anothermansmeat.blogspot.com. E-mail him at phildillon@sbbcglobal.net.
spectator (anonymous) says...
Interesting article, Phil, and I agree with a LOT of it, including the part about boycotting the next election altogether. But after reading the following, I'll be at the polls.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little
were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D. No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.
There is a test coming up; the mid-term election in 2010.
May 20, 2010 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"only 49 percent could identify our three branches of government"
I thought everyone knew that the three branches are the executive, the legislative, and dairy. Duh.
May 20, 2010 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sandman (anonymous) says...
seriouslyfolks, you forgot "Queen"!!! The only problem, the brain power would be in ones back side inside of the head, maybe it already is!!!!
May 21, 2010 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ZaneRokklyn (anonymous) says...
spectator, your story is an urban legend that's been around for at least 15 years. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/so...
Mr. Dillon, I'm not aware of an escape clause in our voting system that would allow "no one" to get elected if we boycotted. Even if no one voted at all, that would still allow the incumbent to remain in power, or the next higher official to make an appointment. So what you're proposing is in effect feudalism. Not a step forward.
May 21, 2010 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
NEVER EVER BOYCOTT AN ELECTION!
Always vote, but stop voting for the lessor of two evils. Write in "NONE OF THE ABOVE"
Imagine the legal battles and political posturing that would take place if we in Kansas started a national trend of saying we are tired of the same old two party choices, because there is really no difference in the candidates. If no candidate is really what you want to represent you, that is the only way to let your voice be heard.
And I guarantee you if "NONE OF THE ABOVE " won the 1st district race in Kansas, things would change.
May 23, 2010 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kseyetie (anonymous) says...
A boycott would be interesting, but stupid. If only one person (the candidate, for example) voted for him/herself, that should be enough to get them elected. It has happened before in small local elections, not due to boycotts but apathy. We need to be engaged and informed and involved.
May 24, 2010 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )