Wednesday, October 15, 2008

I'm an elitist?

I'm beginning to suspect I might be a bit of an elitist.

I've been avoiding writing about the current political campaigns, although I've been following the process closely since the early days of the primaries. But lately things have reached such a low point that I'm starting to tune out. The increasingly negative tone of both campaigns is really getting old, and it only seems sillier in light of current affairs. They're both guilty of a little pointless mudslinging lately, although I have to say that the level of dishonesty and downright nastiness coming from the McCain camp lately has been particularly shocking and offensive (isn't this the guy who swore to run a clean and honorable campaign after getting shit-stormed himself by Bush in 2000? Seems like he of all people ought to know better).

But, as frustrating as it is, I'm enough of a realist to know that all of this is, to a certain extent, just politics. What has been deeply troubling me over the past week or two has been the responses of "normal" people around the country, many of whom seem only too willing to gleefully accept whatever their candidate throws out there, even in the face of clear contrary evidence, just because they like how it feels. Take, as an example, McCain's constant insistence that Obama plans to raise taxes on American families. It happened again in the last debate. McCain mentioned in passing Obama's plan to raise taxes, and during his 2 minutes Obama once again laid out very clear his proposed tax plan (tax cuts for 90% of families and small business tax credits/loans, with raised taxes on families making over $250,000 a year, as well as on coorporate income). Not too long after, McCain was talking about how Barrack plans to raise taxes on middle class families....what??

Now, if McCain has a legitimate issue with Obama's stated tax agenda, that's just fine. He should explain what it is and what he proposes as an alternative. But I am getting SO TIRED of his apparent belief that he gets to make up whatever facts he likes, as long as he just never acknowledges contrary evidence and keeps acting like they're true.

Another small rant along a similar vein, I was stunned when McCain criticized Obama for "voting against the funding of our troops in Iraq", (Barrack voted against a funding bill that had no stated time table for troop withdrawls) when he did the exact same thing himself on a similar funding bill that did stipulate time limits. Now again, if he wants to criticize Obama for insisting on a time table, that's just fine, go right ahead and make that case. But this overblown charge of "lack of patriotism", as if someone Barrack actually wants to cut off funding for our soldiers in Iraq, is just ridiculous. And what's worse, McCain knows it.

So....what does my little tirade have to do with being an elitist? Haha, that's a good question, I got a little sidetracked. The reason I started with that observation is that I've been getting increasingly frustrated that so many people seem content to just accept all this garbage without doing the slightest bit of research or fact checking for themselves (which is so easy to do these days). It honestly pisses me off that this kind of stuff really sticks for a large number of people, people who actually have little to no real information about the candiate they are supporting. The "elitist" part is that I'm getting really frustrated that my life is so intricately tied to the choices of a lot of stupid or lazy people.

I know that sounds really strong, but the funny thing is that I'm actually a strong supporter of the democratic process. It's just that in my mind, the ideal of the "democratic process" is based on informed citizens making difficult choices. And just to be clear, I'm not at all saying that somehow I want everyone to vote like I do, not in the least. I'm totally comfortable with people voting based on opinions and ideologies that I totally disagree with. I just want them to do it based on real information and some considered reflection, not this stupid knee-jerk, name calling political farce.

I've been thinking lately that it would be a really good idea to mandate a short, 5 or 6 question quiz about the actual policies of the candidate they want to vote for. I'm thinking of very general, multiple choice kinds of questions about the candidate's major foreign and domestic policy proposals. Frankly, if someone can't do that then I don't really think they have the right to cast a vote. As an added benefit, the canditates would be highly motivated to very clearly lay out their positions and use their resources to educate their supporters, or risk losing votes.

There was a good reason that classical democracies (including ours when it was founded) restricted the right to vote to those who owned property. They wanted votes to be based on sound consideration by citizens who had a real stake in the outcome, not on political manipulation of a large mass of un-informed people. And yes, I know that that kind of classism carries its own set of ugly problems (more than its worth I think), so I'm not proposing a return to feudalism or anything. I just think that we would all benfit from treating the right to vote as something precious and important, both a gift and a serious obligation.

See...I told you I'm an elitist ;-)

This is definitely one of those posts where I would love to hear people's thoughts.

5 comments:

Joel said...

Ok, you asked so here it is.

You had me until you mentioned the poll quiz. I agree that it would be great if people actually knew something about the candidates and the issues (I'm a bit of a news junkie with a mild political obsession myself), but efforts at disenfranchisement overwhelmingly tend to favor reactionaries (not that I think you're one), which is why every election season the Democrats do everything they can to get out the vote and Republicans do everything they can to make sure certain people can't or don't vote. And, really, like a lot of potentially well-intentioned efforts to increase accountability, this would have a prejudicial impact. Most any poll obstacle will support the status quo and the higher socio-economic classes and I don't think this one is any different in that respect.

Consider, too, the debacle of competency testing (which has been going strong in Texas for several years). Teachers teach to the test, students learn the test and the opportunity for genuine education goes out the window. Consider, too, whose collection of candidates and issues and policies is going to be more homogeneous and simplistic and, therefore, easier to drill. Who's the master of the talking points? To me, the answers to those questions are clear and, frankly, though not a lot of people agree with me on this, I think they already own the media, so I'm not about to give them any more power.

Other fundamental problems:

1) Who decides which issues are important and how the questions and answers are framed? If our modern political process has taught us anything, it's that we can't even agree on the questions, let alone the answers.

2) How far down the ballot do you go? And would the quiz need to be applied per race or against the whole ballot? Frankly, few people I know know about everything that's important about every race. And who's to say what's more important? Even in the broadest terms, does someone's ignorance of local issues disqualify them from participation in a national election (or the reverse)? People are going to prioritize and specialize differently and I like that. It seems to me that any system that properly reflects that diversity is going to be unwieldy but any system that doesn't is unacceptable.

3) Party politics comes into play too. I know it's fashionable to pretend to be independent and "vote for the person and not the party" and while I do actually hate the fact that our system is heavily weighted toward two parties (and to that false and ridiculously-limited dichotomy of "options," to the exclusion of every other choice), that is the state of things and, with some exceptions, I tend to vote for the party. So, does your quiz reflect the party platform or the individual candidates' positions?

No, such a system would be onerous and unworkable. For it to be workable and just, we'd have to improve literacy, education, civility, economic opportunity and a whole host of factors that influence people's ability to fairly participate. We'd have to clean up the media and eliminate both infotainment and irresponsible mud-slinging. So, okay, fix those other systems and conditions and I might reconsider.

Really, if you're seriously considering a poll quiz, I suggest, as a legitimate (though admittedly more difficult to implement) alternative that we opt out of democracy altogether and instead go for a ruling aristocracy selected by their character and intelligence (and not by wealth or status). A genuine theocracy would be nice (no, not one of these "theocracies" run by megalomaniacs who claim to speak for God but an actual theocracy). I am quite serious. And while the prospects for these other systems are slim, the practical possibility for an effective poll quiz that isn't just another trick in the tool bag of the disenfranchisers isn't much better.

BTW, here's one example of the noble quest to prevent voter "fraud": Foreclosure Victims May Lose Votes as Well

Quixotikink said...

Largely, I agree with Joel, and I'm glad he is leaving the thorough response that I would not.

I have heard and considered myself similar thoughts re: child-rearing competency tests. Think of the reprecussions!

As far as whether you're an elitist... Wanting to see the best come out of people (whether in the voting booth or elsewhere) and recognizing that education paves the way for that -- I hardly think that's elitist. It's very rational of you, and in fact demonstrates that you have a high opinion of man's potential.

Despairing in the face of the voluntary avoidance of REALITY so evident in today's political rhetoric is not elitist...

Well, I guess it is. If you consider Facts and Reality as superior to Falsehood and Unreality and prefer the former to the latter -- I guess you could call that "elitist". Other words for it include "rational" and "sensible".

Also, I am really tired of seeing my name on that list of non-bloggers. I've got a blog, dude. Just because it's not interesting doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The Morrigan said...

Mandatory voting quiz aside, I agree with everything that you've said; and I don't find it elitist. The people who simply accept anything fed to them by their party, without noticing the obvious contradictions or doing any additional research to find out if the attacks have any basis in reality, are the people who have signed over their minds and declared that they refuse to think for themselves; these are people who have absolutely NO RIGHT to engage in a democratic process that is going to affect my life. I have a feeling that this is why George Washington was against the establishment of a two-party political system in the first place; it provides people with too easy an excuse not to think. They can sit back and say "oh, I'll simply go along with whatever my party decides," instead of actually coming up with an opinion of their own.

Governor Palin continually uses the phrase "Joe Sixpack" to refer to the American public, which I find to be the most offensive epithet to worm its way into public vernacular. I have no interest in allowing some idiot who spends his time drinking beer and staring at the tv to make decisions about my life. He is simply not qualified to do so until he starts using his brain to make informed decisions about just what he is voting on, and who he is voting for.

The word "elitist" has such a negative connotation these days, but the fact is you are right to hold people up to a higher standard. If they can't measure up to those standards, then they don't deserve to have any power over your life.

(I've been reading Atlas Shrugged, so your entire post hits quite close to home... can you tell? *grins*)

A Traveling Girl said...

Think you need to review the definition of "elitist."

Here goes:

Cambridge Dictionary of American English: elitist - adjective = Characteristic of the elite, and esp. not caring about the interests or values of ordinary people.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: elitism - noun = When things are organized for the benefit of a few people with special interests or abilities.

American Heritage Dictionary: elitism = The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Since I think I know you fairly well, let me put this to rest... Justin Fike IS NOT elitist. That said the issues you wrestle with confirm that you really are a Renaissance man for your generation. I enjoy watching and cheering from the sidelines.

Joel said...

Obviously not having said enough already . . . ;-)

I agree with a lot of what The Morrigan says about this. Ironically, I think there is something positive to be said for our cultural disdain for intellectualism, because intellectualism can be just another form of classist bigotry. Ironicaller (I'll pretend that that ugliness is my schizophrenic attempt to appeal to both the intellectuals and the anti-intellectuals) still, our anti-intellectualism is just as bad (or worse). And, of course, it's stupider.

It is pretty damned insulting and disturbing that Joe Sixpack is held up as the paragon of what it means to be American and that education and thoughtfulness are so frequently derided and demonized.

Sure, I know some intellectuals who are assholes, but a lot of us (if I may dare to put myself in that class--where I'm really not sure I belong, but I'm definitely more "intellectual" than "sixpack") are humble, lovable stand-up guys. And Joe Sixpack isn't always such a peach, I have to say. Um, not that he'd appreciate being compared to fruit, I'm sure.

I always think of 1 Cor 12 when these discussions arise. It seems to me that our solution is always to amputate the parts of the body that we don't understand, but those are the parts we maybe need the most. No one needs good ears as much as a hyperfocused eyeball does, if you know what I mean.