Faith No More

Ripped from the headlines of today's paper (well, Gannett via The Cincinnati Enquirer):

Young people's trust in government falters

Young Americans in the past two years have lost some of their trust in government, according to a poll out Thursday.

"While it's not fair to say it's a dark mood, there's no question young people continue to have questions about the direction of the country and doubt whether there are good plans to solve our problems," Ed Goeas said. The Republican pollster, with Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, conducted the poll for two groups focused on civic engagement.

The poll of 1,000 Americans ages 15 to 25 found that those who say they trust the government to do the right thing a lot or some of the time fell from 62 percent in January 2002 to 50 percent in November 2003.

It's partly the result of a return to normal following a burst of patriotism that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Goeas said.

Younger Americans who identify themselves as Democrats and liberals lost much of that trust. Drops among Republican conservatives were less.

…

The poll showed young Americans have concerns almost identical to their older counterparts: the economy, Iraq and terrorism. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

For another view, check out what Reason Assistant Editor Julian Sanchez had to say about the politics of the kids these days in the December ish.

Comments

[Jennifer]

Damn, where are these mistrustful kids? The high-school students I see are mostly pro-government zombies!

I had to teach Fahrenheit 451 to high-school seniors last April, and before we started reading the book I led a discussion on censorship: when is it all right for the government to censor information? I was hoping for answers like "It was okay for the Allies to hide the fact that they'd be invading Normandy on June 6," but here are some answers I actually got (and remember, this was from the 'college-bound' class):

"It's good that the government censors information about alien visitations; otherwise people would panic."

"People could protest the Iraq war BEFORE we invaded, but now that we're over there they should shut up, because protesting is bad for soldiers' morale."

"Yeah, protests are why we lost Vietnam."

But it wasn't just right-wingers and alien abductees who supported censorship:

"Anti-Arab or Anti-Muslim stuff should be censored, so Americans don't start treating Arabs the way we treated the Japanese in World War Two."

To plagiarize Florence King: "Jesus wept, and so did I."

[Dan]

Why is it relevant that your students were "college-bound"? With the exception of the "alien abduction" remark (future Visual Arts major, there) any of those comments, or ones similar but about different wars/ethnicities, could easily have come from plenty of the college-educated, masters-or-law-degree-holding members of any North American or European government.

This would have been a good opportunity to teach the children the value of the First Amendment's free speech protection -- since I've no doubt that both halves of the class was horrified that the other half of the class wanted to censor them. 🙂

Anyway, this poll sounds really vague. 50% think the government "a lot or some of the time"? That implies the other 50% think it never does the right thing, ever. While that thought gives me hope for the future, seems unlikely to be an accurate reflection of what the survey's targets were thinking.

[GoonFood]

Wha? They trust the gov 50% of the time? Wow, that must be some damned nice crack they are smoking. Take off that 0 and you'd have an accurate figure of my trust of our government.

[Gadfly]

Imagine that. Youngsters are self absorbed and don't trust old farts. Next thing you know they'll be having sex.

[Jennifer]

It is relevant that my students were 'college-bound' because I wanted readers to understand that such asinine comments were not from Down's Syndrome kids, but young people with above-average intelligence.

Of course I tried to make them realize the folly of censorship. When one girl said, and several agreed, that censorship should apply to anything which the majority found disturbing or offensive, I pointed out how each one of us could be considered offensive by various people. I also pointed out that during the civil rights era, white Southerners were extremely disturbed and offended by news coverage of Martin Luther King. Should the media have been silent?

"No, but that's different. Everybody knows that segregation is wrong."

The fact that even high-school kids, let alone educated adults, can believe such things is very disturbing. These kids believed censoring opinions is a virtue, not a vice.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

Some folks on Hit & Run don't care about censorship either, so your students are in good company.

[Dan]

Jennifer,

Yes, I understand that these were "smart", or at least "educated", kids. Now answer me this:

What's stupid or ignorant about being pro-censorship?

Yes, many people (like myself) believe in the free marketplace of ideas -- the notion that, in the long run, "bad" ideas lose out to "good" ones. However, the evidence for the existance of such a marketplace, especially where issues of culture, morality, and religion are concerned, is shaky at best. Plenty of ideas and beliefs that are irrational, baseless, or (in my opinion) just plain evil have held on for millennia, and while I believe they will one day "die" I can't prove it.

Add in the fact that countless beliefs and ideas HAVE been successfully crushed by censorship in the past, and it's easy to see why a person could form a belief that censorship is a valid tool for social engineering. A rational, intelligent person could quite reasonably believe that censorship is more effective at suppressing bad ideas than free speech is at refuting them.

And, of course, there are many people who believe that free speech has a lower priority than other issues of need or morality. For example, a case could be made that the WW2-era laws restricting public criticism of the war effort, while certainly a violation of Americans' free speech rights, were, from a utilitarian perspective, a "good" act if they lessened the chances of the United States withdrawing from the war. Then there's a religious: if fornication is sinful, and sinners go to Hell, and enjoying others' fornication is tantamount to committing the sin yourself, how could a good, believing Christian NOT be in favor of censoring pornography? From a sex=sin perspective porn provides, on the one hand, no benefit to anyone, and on the other hand indirectly sends more people to Hell.

I think you need to understand that the belief you obviously hold quite dear -- "censorship = bad" -- is not a universal truth that can be discovered through reason. It is a moral belief, not a factual one. I think you're right -- but then, I also think that there are no gods, and that free enterprise is a better cure for poverty than government intervention is. Plenty of educated, intelligent people disagree violently with THIS particular intelligent, educated person on those subjects. 🙂

[TJ]

Dan,

It is of course possible that Jennifer's students carefully analysed the pros and cons of censorship before responding to her question. Possible, but not likely.
More likely: they haven't developed an interest yet in philosophy or politics. They have been studying other stuff. High schoolers can be amazingly educated in some areas, and laughably deficient in others.
I seem to remember a time long ago, when my curriculum consisted of science, math, and girls (not necessarily in that order), and precious little else. 🙂

[Jennifer]

Dan-

I value reason over faith, and censorship is like religious dogma in many ways.

Consider: it is illegal to feed cyanide to people. Why? Because it kills them, and this effect is obvious regardless of your religious or political beliefs. Thus, I support an anti-cyanide law. But to say that pornography is dangerous requires faith, since there are no facts to prove this. You are welcome to your faith, but do not force it on me.

And, obviously, an evil or corrupt government would favor censorship to cover its flaws. The US World War Two laws weren't just used against Nazi sympathizers, but against patriotic black soldiers who protested their subhuman treatment.

Gvernment and others should consider this: if you have to hide or distort the truth to justify your cause, consider the possibility that your cause is not worth justifying.

[JayD]

My favorite band of all time, along with King's X.

[Rich]

Yeah, Mike Patton is a god.

[dhex]

irony is a dead scene is the hotness (w/dillinger escape plan)

just thought i'd mention that...again.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I remember that at my high school all the kids were against censorship. I also remember that the teachers spent a lot of time telling us to shut up.

Ah, memories...

[Dan]

Consider: it is illegal to feed cyanide to people. Why? Because it kills them, and this effect is obvious regardless of your religious or political beliefs. Thus, I support an anti-cyanide law.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. In order for that to be a logical reason to support an anti-cyanide law, you have to accept the axiom "killing people is bad". This belief is not universal; you are, by supporting such laws, forcing your beliefs on other people.

But to say that pornography is dangerous requires faith, since there are no facts to prove this. You are welcome to your faith, but do not force it on me.

I'm an atheist, as I explicitly stated in my post. You just need to realize that the very act of passing laws means forcing our beliefs on other people. There isn't an objectively quantifiable difference between "good" forcing and "bad" forcing.

And, obviously, an evil or corrupt government would favor censorship to cover its flaws.

Ah, the "argumentum ad Hitlerium": Hitler did it, so it's obviously bad. Certainly corrupt and evil governments favor censorship to cover their flaws, but "good" governments can favor it for other reasons. For example, a democracy can favor censorship on the basis of the fact that 51% of the population wants something censored; certainly no worse than favoring taxes on the basis of the fact that 51% of the population wants the money spent on something other than what its owners want to spend it on.

you have to hide or distort the truth to justify your cause, consider the possibility that your cause is not worth justifying.

Hide or distort "the truth"? So now the victims of censorship are truth-speakers, are they?

If the United States government decided, tomorrow, to make it illegal to print the Communist Manifesto, truth would in no way be harmed. Freedom, yes; truth no. Being the victim of censorship, historically speaking, has seldom been a matter of "truth", but instead simply a matter of saying things the people in power (or the people in general) didn't want said.

If a parent prevents their five-year old from watching "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", is that due to fear of the truth? Or could it be due to a desire to (a) protect the child and (b) make the parents' lives easier (no nightmares)? To return to the Communist Manifesto idea, a government might ban it on the grounds that it appeals to the ignorant and the foolish, and has a nasty habit of inspiring bloody revolutions with corpses piled high, followed by millions more dead. They would be banning it not because it contains truth, but because it is dangerous to both the people and to the government itself.

Now, I don't agree with that reasoning, but I can't prove it's wrong. So I see no reason to express surprise if educated and/or intelligent people believe it.

[Andrew Lynch]

Polls are worthless indicators of widespread currents. Even when they have value, it manifests only when independently developed but nonetheless consonant models are applied by different polling organizations to a like control group. And that doesn't happen.

[Jennifer]

Dan--
There's a big difference between a parent banning a five-year-old from a movie, and the government banning adults from it. You say that the act of passing laws forces your beliefs on others; no, in the case of anti-censorship laws you are FORBIDDEN to force your beliefs on others.

Compare the US to Al-Qaeda. Al Qaeda wants to force women to wear tents in public. The US, by contrast, does not want to force women to show their skin; we're simply saying that you can't force other women to wear tents. But if you want to wear one, go right ahead.

And where does the reductio ad Hitlerum come in? I wasn't talking about Hitler; I was talking about the US government's mistreatment of black soldiers, or the so-called "premature anti-Fascists."

I'd never force you to read The Communist Manifesto; just don't say that I can't because you won't.

[Eric the .5b]

Sadly, not trusting the current administration had absolutely nothing to do with not trusting government in general. The most rebellious, distrustful young folks out there just think the Republicans are evil bastards who permit problems to exist that the Democrats - or maybe the Greens - could solve with just a little taxpayer money from those undeserving assholes with full-time jobs and property.