The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New Book Chapter on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance""
It is now available for download on SSRN. The chapter is part of a forthcoming volume on "The Epistemology of Democracy," edited by Hana Samaržija and Quassim Cassam.
My forthcoming book chapter, "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance," is now available for free download on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
There is broad, though not universal, agreement that widespread voter ignorance and irrational evaluation of evidence are serious threats to democracy. But there is deep disagreement over strategies for mitigating the danger. "Top-down" approaches, such as epistocracy and lodging more authority in the hands of experts, seek to mitigate ignorance by concentrating more political power in the hands of the more knowledgeable segments of the population. By contrast, "bottom-up" approaches seek to either raise the political competence of the general public or empower ordinary people in ways that give them better incentives to make good decisions than conventional ballot-box voting does. Examples of bottom-up strategies include increasing voter knowledge through education, various "sortition" proposals, and also shifting more decisions to institutions where citizens can "vote with their feet."
This chapter surveys and critiques a range of both top-down and bottom-up strategies. I conclude that top-down strategies have systematic flaws that severely limit their potential. While they should not be categorically rejected, we should be wary of adopting them on a large scale. Bottom-up strategies have significant limitations of their own. But expanding foot voting opportunities holds more promise than any other currently available option. The idea of paying voters to increase their knowledge also deserves serious consideration.
The chapter builds, in part, on my previous work, particularly elements of my books Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom and Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter. But it also offers new assessments of several strategies for alleviating political ignorance, as well as a new way of categorizing such solutions. I particularly want to highlight the idea of paying voters to increase their knowledge levels, which has not gotten nearly as much attention as it deserves.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hi, Ilya. How about being merciless about crushing the indoctrination of our kids and teaching them history, civics, and the law in schools, from the 5th grade on?
Law school is starting. Hey law profs, how does it feel to spread the stink you have to another year of intelligent, ethical students, turning them into the most toxic dumbasses in our nation? You totally stink in everything you do, and now you will teach them how to stink too. You will hide the real facts about your stank. Every self stated goal of every law subject is in failure. You will be indoctrinating them into supernatural doctrines. You will make them 1000 times more toxic than organized crime.
The rise of
authoritarian-leaning right-wing populist movements in the United States and many
European countries has accentuated the significance of this menace, as has the role of
public ignorance during the Covid-19 pandemic and in fostering the common yet
incorrect belief that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Donald Trump.
Thank you. Dismissed. Another Democrat attack running dog piece by Ilya Somin.
Is there a special discount for VC commenters?
Hey, Bummie Boy. How many stars in the US flag?
That's Mr. Bumble to you.
Until you stop with your fallacy of irrelevance, it will be Bummie Boy. Try a substantive point as a palate cleanser.
The reason you are so disappointing as a commenter is that it’s clear there is a mind and an education in there someplace. It’s just that it’s all been twisted into the service of gobbledygook.
Are you a lawyer, Hon? If not, I have no dispute with you. I do not expect you to understand gobbledygook. That is not a defect. That is a feature to collect the rent.
Maybe it's best to not try and education people beyond their natural limitations. If everyone can just be exposed to the history of the holocaust and slavery, in such a way that students can empathize with the victims, that might be enough for most people.
Even that might be too much for some people to understand.
I was in a class at top-25 university and the professor asked for opinions on *why* slavery was wrong. The answers were diverse and disturbing.
Based on that sample, a large fraction of the population would approve of chattel slavery if the slaves had the same racial makeup as the general population. Another large fraction would approve of chattel slavery as long as "no one is making a profit".
Are you totally insensitive about the elitism and condescension exuded by that statement? It ranks right up there with use of the n-word.
I'll get the fainting couch!
Dude defines voter ignorance and it's not just 'disagrees with me.'
I don't agree with his thesis, but engage his content not melodrama.
" It ranks right up there with use of the n-word. "
No, it does not.
Your energetic defense of the ignorant and irrational seems odd. Do you have a substantial personal stake in that issue?
So Artie, how long have you been a leftwing extremist homosexual?
Another right-wing culture war loser heard from, at a bigot-friendly, white, male, faux libertarian, movement conservative blog.
Carry on, clingers. People like me will continue to let you know how far and how long that will be permitted.
Also, a course on world religions would to wonders for cultivating tolerance and open-mindedness.
I will guess that the proffered solution to political issues is to casually dismiss the perspective of others. Or to offer "keyhole solutions" to address those issues while ignoring the fact that "keyhole solutions" are never actually enacted and implemented, so they are just another less honest dismissal of others' perspectives.
Claiming "ignorance" when people won’t believe every spreadsheet model some activist concocts is also a popular answer among some sorts of people.
LOL you don't read his posts, I guess.
His solution is to shrink government.
It’s more fun to guess. I got it about 80% right last time. It was lousy with "keyhole solutions" handwaving that time.
Sure you did. Reactionaries always remember getting it right.
Sure you did.
Democrats like to name-call and slur Americans that way. It’s sad what you’ve let yourself become.
You got it wrong, and when pointed it out just said ‘well I usually get it right.’
No, dude. You hate Somin but you clearly don’t read him.
The actual solution to "political ignorance" is for the government to do a tiny, tiny fraction of what it does. Then the public only needs to understand a little bit to be well informed.
^ That's my book on the subject. No charge.
Because government does nothing well.
If you had placed the SSA payments into an index fund, with no decisions allowed, the monthly payments would be tripled.
They took our $trillion and got chased out of 6 countries by Stone Age savages with $50 weapons. Our military is terrible due to its lawyer whipped leadership.
I like your book.
Exactly.
Somin page 1 : The rise of authoritarian-leaning right-wing populist movements in the United States and many European countries has accentuated the significance of this menace, as has the role of public ignorance during the Covid-19 pandemic and in fostering the common yet incorrect belief that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Donald Trump.
Somin page 3 : They [low information voters] instead assess those facts in a highly biased way, overvaluing those that reinforce their preexisting views and undervaluing or even ignoring the rest.
☺
Somin page 1 (one of those Brahmins who are going to educate the deplorables to overcome their ignorance) does exactly what Somin page 3 sniffs at – evaluating the facts from the perspective of his existing prejudices.
In reality (aka my own postjudices) roughly 95% of the authoritarianism on view in the United States and Europe over the last couple of years has been provided by the forces of “progress.” Covid has given not just US lefties, but progressive darlings around the world from Justin Trudeau to Jacinta Ardern every opportunity to expose their inner fascist. It’s not Ron DeSantis who has been enforcing mask mandates, firing workers for not getting jabbed, freezing protestors bank accounts, or keeping schools closed. And it’s not right wing populists who have been censoring the views of their political opponents.
Meanwhile “public ignorance” during the Covid pandemic is Somin-code for healthy scepticism about authoritarian public health officials claiming to know things they didn’t know, and which now proves to be nonsense. While those genuine experts who said it was nonsense all along were banished from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc.
And the belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump is not “incorrect”- it is merely unproven. There simply isn’t the evidence available to adjudicate the claim that the election was stolen. Not least because many of the irregularities – such as dispensing with the legal requirements for signature verification – are of a nature that destroys the evidence.
Somin is welcome to claim that the claim of a stolen election is “incorrect” but that is no less of a mere belief than the contrary opinion.
Demonstrating that Somin’s prescription is that "incorrect" = "disagrees with Somin".
" And the belief that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump is not “incorrect”- it is merely unproven. "
Just like the beliefs that the moon is made of green cheese; storks deliver babies; a rapture will solve environmental problems; former Pres. Obama is a communist Muslim born outside the United States; and former Pres. Trump attracted the largest inaugural crowd ever -- period!
Also, gravity is merely a theory. Much like evolution.
Delusional, disaffected, desperate right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Revvie Boy. Where did you go to law school? Love me that legal analysis, bruh.
I did not realize you were this kind of partisan.
Healthy skepticism that back then and now clearly killed a lot of people. Yelling made up shit about the 2020 election is not incorrect, merely unproven???
You have intellectualized yourself into varying standards of proof such that the right will never be wrong. Congrats in your hard won ideologue status. I guess soon you will join the Bretts Bens and Jimmys and start explaining how only political violence can save us from this progressive authoritarian tide you see.
A delightfully page 3 response.
Healthy skepticism that back then and now clearly killed a lot of people.
Silly nonsense. Covid killed old sick people with pre-existing conditions, especially if constantly restocked into nursing homes. Lockdowns and masks had no discernable medical effects - as had been known by epidemiologists for decades. Though lockdowns had plenty of adverse economic effects.
And here's a good topical example of authoritarian left wing Covid nonsense :
https://reason.com/2022/08/26/40-percent-of-d-c-s-black-teens-will-soon-be-barred-from-school-because-they-arent-vaccinated/?itm_source=parsely-api
It's been known since the very beginning of the Covid outbreak that Covid presents virtually no risk to teenagers. And it's been known for at least a year that Covid vaccination has no effect on your ability to pass on an infection to someone else.
Since 1/2021 Covid has killed low information Trump voters in significantly higher numbers than wealthy Republicans and Democrats. All things being equal the metric that would determine a population’s Covid death rate would be % below poverty line.
The funny thing about Trump is that his supporters hate his policies while remaining totally committed to the man. So they hate his surrender to the Taliban, they hate the Trumpcines, and they think Powell is doing an awful job. And they believe the greatest economy in history lasted all of a year and that the border is worse than ever!?!
Sigh...
They don't "hate the Trumpcines". They just feel that they shouldn't be forced to take it. If others want to, they're fine with it.
Nope, low information Trump supporters believe the vaccines are dangerous, and they believe Covid is a Chinese bioweapon but it isn’t dangerous.
Sebastian, what I hear most often from MAGA types is "well we don't like Trump personally but we like his policies so we will vote for him again."
These people have no fricking clue as to what the policies actually are. What they hear is something like defending us from the murder/rapists coming in hordes over the border and the Democrats will do nothing to stop it. That's all the news and they ignore the 18 other "policies" that basically take more money out of their pockets to make it easier for rich people to accumulate.
They didn't get to be Trump fans or Republicans with adequate education, sound judgment, solid character, reliance on reason, love of modern America, or a solid tether to the reality-based world.
Similarly, a lot of people who voted for Biden are now dismayed that his administration is supporting the brainwashing and mutilation of children, the destruction of our southern border, and laws that take more money out of their pockets to make it easier for the elite class to accumulate. They had no idea what policies they were voting for, they just heard "orange man bad" and decided they had to vote against Trump.
A large part of ignorance that is because the rest of us warned them, but media cheerleaders decried that as something like Russian propaganda.
No, your right wing fringe nonsense is not dismaying many who voted for Biden.
Literally, you could see his policies listed on his campaign website, and if you complained about them, some left winger would claim that you were making it up. The level of denial was that intense.
Yeah, the section on supporting the brainwashing and mutilation of children was a doozey.
Don't mistake right-wing spin on mainstream stuff for a reality many share, Brett.
Thank you, Lee. A thoughtful discussion of an issue, as distinct from the name-calling and issue-dodging done by too many of the commenters here.
If commenters on this low-key law blog are generally unable to bring themselves to engage in an honest discussion of important public issues, it makes one wonder what hope there is for effective democratic government, eh, Prof. Somin?
"Stolen election" kookery is "thoughtful discussion?"
Reasoning, informed, educated Americans see that nonsense as grounds for disciplinary investigations. Volokh Conspiracy fans see it as sensible debate.
No wonder the culture war has been such a rout.
Clingers hardest hit.
There are some obvious solutions which involve not allowing people with no forced participation to vote on the forced participation of others.
The obviousness follows from insights gained by experiencing forced participation.
I hope you realize that there is a lot more to participating in society, forced or no, than taxes.
All I'm saying that people who experience forced participation have a far more educated view on such participation than those who vote to force someone else to participate.
When we look at the "threat to the republic by uneducated voters", that's what we see. People voting to force other people is a threat.
That's where "originalism" would suggest taking a second look.
Everyone in America is forced to participate in society.
We have laws, you see.
Originalism in service of limiting who gets to vote is not actually taking from the wisdom of the founders, but rather their flaws.
Originalism in service of limiting who gets to vote is not actually taking from the wisdom of the founders, but rather their flaws.
Time will tell.
The last 90 years have been a headlong plunge into the democratic experiment having abandoned the concerns of the founders.
It might turn out that the skeptics were right. Sooner or later all democracies will fall, the inherent weakness being the willingness of the 51% to vote themselves benefits provided by the 49%.
I personally find it a deeply immoral system that binds people but gives them no voice.
But even beyond that, your misanthropic take on the responsibility of your fellow Americans is informed only by elevating your own preferred spending and policies into the only wise and moral ones. With an utter lack of humility like that, of course you want there to be second class citizens.
You are a aristocrat trapped in a republic. Here is my tiny violin for you.
I personally find it a deeply immoral system that binds people but gives them no voice.
I'm guessing you represent a lesser threat compared to those who find blasphemy to be deeply immoral.
I mean yeah; that’s why I said personally.
I wouldn’t come here unless I was able to interact with those whose moral systems I found troubling.
Weird you’d take that as a threat.
"I personally find it a deeply immoral system that binds people but gives them no voice."
I kind of think it's the binding part that's immoral, there. "Two wolves and a sheep" is not materially improved by the wolves allowing the sheep to bleat a bit before being eaten.
And of course you are wrong. Operationally many things impinge on freedom in ways the government can alleviate. You just don’t count them as binding because they don’t bind better off white males like you and I.
Sarcastro : Operationally many things impinge on freedom in ways the government can alleviate.
1. Do you have an English translation of this ?
2. A couple of examples would help convert mysterious abstraction into something concrete.
Oh good! I do love talking about this concept.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Strictly formal equality and freedom don't really address the real world experience of a lot of people.
The New Deal and Civil Rights Acts showed how 'big' government can actually further people's actual freedom - giving them a larger set of choices they can realistically make, not just theoretically if they were wealthy and not discriminated against.
Ah, I see. You're simply redefining "freedom" to mean "ability to act."
I quite agree that many things impinge on people's ability to act that the government can alleviate. (Though what "operationally has to do with it, I don't know.) Many people cannot afford to go on a foreign vacation - even though they are perfectly free to go. If the government gave them a couple of thousand dollars they would not only be free to go, but able to go.
Me I prefer freedom, and I prefer to converse using words of settled and consistent meaning, deploying different words when I wish to refer to a different concept.
You clearly prefer your gnomic style of speech because it helps to conceal the fact that you are a semantic shapeshifter.
But I'm on to you 🙂
No, my definition of freedom is not idiosyncratic, it’s actually what most people understand - freedom to act. Not some dumb formalistic in name only thing.
FDR’s speeches talk about this freedom. America was and is into it.
And none of them mean equality of luxuries. That’s a weak strawman,
Yes, government is not the only thing that can reduce somebody's freedom, and sometimes government can alleviate those non-governmental threats. At other times, government IS the threat.
The goal is to maximize freedom, summed across all threats to it, not to minimize just one particular threat.
To this end, you simply can't pretend that the government isn't taking people's freedom away so long as they have 'voice', are permitted to complain about it.
Democracy isn't an alternative to oppression, it's just a way of choosing the oppressor. We must never forget that.
I'm not talking about the government taking or not taking freedom; this is before that. Participation in government is orthogonal to policy - a dictator might have good policies but still be bad.
You seem to see in your final paragraph that one cannot ignore consent of the governed and go straight to 'we must maximize freedom' as your only civic loadstone.
Well, yes, I'm perfectly fine with ignoring the democratic will to oppress the minority.
One can consent on somebody else's behalf under limited circumstances: A parent for a minor child, a spouse for an unconscious partner.
"The consent of the governed" generalizes this too far, I think, by allowing the majority to consent on behalf of the minority.
Now, to some extent impositions contrary to consent are unavoidable; The rapist does not consent to rape laws, the burglar to laws against burglary.
But the more expansive government grows beyond just punishing attacks by one citizen against another, the more it grows into areas where the minority can't meaningfully be said to have consented, they're merely losers in a game they weren't permitted to not play.
And it's rubbing salt in the wound to pretend that they actually consented to being the loser, just because they wouldn't have lost if they'd been in the majority.
The issue is that what counts as oppression depends on who you ask.
So you are left with a principleless system with no democracy and freedom as defined by whomever is left as arbiter.
Discarding means In favor of ends never ever works in politics.
"The issue is that what counts as oppression depends on who you ask."
Yeah, some people feel oppressed if they can't order other people around, I have noticed that.
"So you are left with a principleless system with no democracy and freedom as defined by whomever is left as arbiter."
Yeah, once you've rejected any principled basis for excluding subjects from the reach of government, I suppose you're going to see any limitations as principleless.
some people feel oppressed if they can't order other people around, I have noticed that.
This is you missing that 'depends on who you ask' includes you. And me.
once you've rejected any principled basis for excluding subjects from the reach of government,
Who has done that? You may not agree with the Dems' take on the Constitution, but no one claims the bill of rights doesn't exist. Heck, many times the Dems point out how the *right* is contracting it's extent.
Off the top of my head, you don't think illegals have any rights. 'Shall make no law' apparently secretly includes text 'about citizens' in it. That is *you* rejecting any principled basis for excluding subjects from the reach of government, as applied to certain people.
Thus: "what counts as oppression depends on who you ask." To a lot of folks, your desires make you the oppressor. You may disagree, but the point about subjectivity is made, I think.
But "society" ≠ "government".
The OP makes not such distinction.
That would be a problem with the OP, wouldn't it?
Sorry - OP has a contextually shifting meaning.
It can mean the actual Conspirators post, or the post that sets off this thread. In this case, I meant the latter. Which renders your defense irrelevant to their point, and my issue with it.
We're currently facing the threat of a collapsed $US, due to runaway inflation driven by deficit spending. The collapse of the $US will create instability not seen since Weimar.
Who votes for that carp? It's skewed by people who don't participate in the economy. Ignorant people who don't have a clue as to where money comes from, and only slightly where it goes. And yet, they get a vote which can be influenced by government handouts.
You read like a parody of the most extreme global warming alarmists.
I read his comment as a practical demonstration of ignorance.
Frustration with the status quo oftentimes turns into wishes for a catastrophe to change it, and then to predictions of same. It is a bipartisan affliction of the far fringe whose extreme and unpopular preferences have no hope of ever being realized.
During the Brexit campaign, I was struck by the very weak defence of Remain by the Labour leadership under Corbyn, particularly given that the Labour Party nominally were strongly anti-Brexit. I concluded that Corbyn felt that a win for the Brexiteers would be a political catastrophe, the British people would blame the Tories for it, and the Labour Party would benefit. Well, Corbyn, scum that he is, was thrown out after getting his arse kicked twice at general elections...
Brexit is a good illustration of "political ignorance" a la Somin.
Received opinion was that Brexit would be an immediate economic catastrophe. Not understanding this would be a classic example of the dangers to the polity of the political ignorance of the proles.
In reality, there has been no Brexit catastrophe - the only economic catastrophe has been the effects of Covid lockdowns (a policy recommended by the self-proclaimed cognoscenti) which have been much the same everywhere they have been pursued.
In reality the success or failure of Brexit depends on the policies pursued by the now independent British government, and whether they are wiser than those imposed by the EU. The record so far seems to be that the policies of the current British government and the policies of the EU are of roughly equivalent idiocy.
You are a bit early on your Brexit ended without catastrophe take.
"Received opinion was that Brexit would be an immediate economic catastrophe."
Read the question.
Sarcastro doesn't do that.
Oh well then you misstate the ‘received wisdom’.
I think you misread the situation. Corbyn wasn't being tactical; it wasn't 11th dimensional chess. He (and hence the Labour apparatus) weakly opposed Brexit because Corbyn himself was anti-EU.
We're currently facing the threat of a collapsed $US, due to runaway inflation driven by deficit spending. The collapse of the $US will create instability not seen since Weimar.
No. We are not.
No. We are not.
Slowly at first. Then suddenly.
The deficit is increasing. The interest rate on the debt is increasing, which will in turn add to the deficit. What they can't lend at the interest rate they print. What they print is inflation.
We're going to see it.
What they print is sometimes inflation. At other times a salutary counter to deflation. You have seen it, but didn't know what you were looking at.
The majority of Americans alive today have never seen deflation, that's how heavily biased in favor of inflation our policies are. This is like a meth addict refusing to end a binge because of the threat of becoming too heavily sedated.
The majority of Americans alive today have never seen deflation
The vast majority of people anywhere over all time have never seen deflation. Governments are heavily motivated toward inflationary trends because they get the money they print.
Only in some very peculiar times has anyone seen deflation, when the then contemporary government implemented a policy of actually reducing the money supply.
Further, as a practical matter, economies seem to work best with a low level of ambient inflation, 1-2%. But we've seen runaway inflation in other countries before. We were headed there during the '70s, but pulled back.
Raising interest rates is only half the solution. The other half is dramatically reducing the deficit. That half just ain't happening.
How about an example of deflation in the US.
How about an example of deflation in the US.
The only example in modern times was around 1930 when the money supply contracted in conjunction with the collapse of the US banking system.
On the contrary. The recession of 2009 was arguably deflationary. The two Volker recessions of 1981– 1982 were massively deflationary as a matter of both practice and policy. They pushed the value of the dollar so high relative to other currencies that foreign governments defaulted on bonds denominated in dollars. To bail them out (to protect U.S. lenders), the International Monetary Fund provided foreign loans, conditioned on deflation of foreign currencies to be achieved by massive fiscal austerity. That immiserated millions around the globe, who lost jobs and government services including health care.
Absent huge government bailouts of families and businesses, the Covid crisis would also have been massively deflationary, at least in the U.S. There are reasonable arguments that the bailouts overshot their target, and induced at least some of the recent inflation. Against that, there are reasonable arguments that other nations which did not use comparable bailouts now suffer similar inflation. But it ought to be clear that the Covid crisis was a naturally deflationary episode, managed for better or worse by anti-deflationary policy.
My own view of the present inflation is that it is mostly the result of a combination of a release of pent-up demand caused by Covid—and funded in part by those government payments—coupled with opportunistic price increases by corporations, which have taken advantage of lax enforcement against collusion.
Supply chain problems figured in at the outset, but do not seem to be doing much to drive prices up now. Perceiving the present moment as a rare opportunity which may soon end, corporations rush to pile on more and more price hikes. Some companies which were late to the party are getting in now, while others are going back for second and third helpings.
Many of the recent price increases bear little to no relation to any conceivable increase in costs. That is a fact nearly universally overlooked by an apparently innumerate business press. It never seems to take into account in its reporting that whatever cost-increase gets cited in a press release to justify a higher price, it cannot usually be attributed alike to most of the costs of running a business. If the price of mustard seed goes up 30%, that cannot justify a 30% increase in the price of mustard on the store shelf, unless that is the only cost to make the finished product. When wages go up 7%, that cannot justify a near-doubling of the prices at your local fast food joint. Even if wages doubled, that would not justify doubling the prices.
Before letting the Fed pull a full Volker, and induce another avoidable world-wide financial calamity, maybe it would be wise to look for administrative remedies which actually address specific factors causing this particular inflation.
"The recession of 2009 was arguably deflationary."
"Arguably" is doing all the work here. You can claim we had a moment of deflation back in 2009. A moment so short nobody really noticed.
I do see that the FRED separately calculates "urban" inflation, and THAT has shown episodes of deflation that don't show up in the overall numbers. I so I suppose somebody who lives in a city might have an excuse for thinking deflation isn't freakishly rare.
dwshelf the 70's just called. They want your VW Beetle back.
the 70's just called. They want your VW Beetle back.
Mine was a bus. Wasn't very reliable.
Those Nazi's knew how to build things.
"Top-down" approaches, such as epistocracy and lodging more authority in the hands of experts, seek to mitigate ignorance by concentrating more political power in the hands of the more knowledgeable segments of the population.
That's not going to work. Others here will provide plenty of good reasons, but I'd like to cite one that undermines the whole premise.
Lots of politics is about values, not the best way to try to achieve shared goals. Look at abortion for a prime example. Look at the arguments over student loan forgiveness, or military aid to Ukraine.
No group of experts can tell us whether we should or should not be helping Ukraine, and how much. Sure, experts can give their differing points of view as to the likely consequences of either policy, or the budgetary impact, or whatever. They, and a lot of non-experts, are already doing that.
But the final decision is inherently political, not technical, and that's true of many government actions. If you are thinking of building a bridge you want engineers to design it, but you don't want them (exclusively) making the decision as whether it should be built.
Agreed, though I'd mention in the context of bridge building that engineering is not a science like physics. An engineering solution certainly requires a scientific understanding of engineering principles, and physics, but it necessarily incorporates values. There's no such thing as "the correct bridge."
Any bridge necessarily involves questions like - how long should it be designed to last, what traffic should it be able to carry, what environmental impact is acceptable, how much should be spent, what level of earthquake-proofery should be catered for etc. These are all value questions. It's not simply a case of whether "the bridge" should be built. It's a question of how much bridge, for what users, of what quality, for how much etc. You do not answer these questions with a slide rule.
And what trade offs should be made between competing objectives.
I agree that what the US should do is not an "expertise" issue, but:
Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, TV and internet news was filled with images of Russian military "exercises" near Ukraine. The images gave the impression that the Russian attack would be so powerful that there was no hope for effective Ukranian resistance. Obviously, that impression was wrong. Were NONE OF OUR MILITARY EXPERTS aware of the shortcomings of the Russia military? Or did no one ask the question?
Any war in 2022 is pretty dumb…there isn’t really anything worth killing people over other than killing people with an irrational desire to kill you. Zelensky is president of Ukraine and even he knew Ukraine didn’t have anything worth going to war over which is why he didn’t believe Putin would invade.
Apparently Ukraine did have something: Children. Russia has been relocating captured Ukrainian children and adopting them out to Russian families, an interesting way to resolve their own birth dearth.
Eric, why do you assume that what you read in the media is an accurate representation of the expertise of US Military intelligence?
Well said.
" Sure, experts can give their differing points of view as to the likely consequences of either policy, or the budgetary impact, or whatever."
And realizing that the claims they make in this regard will influence decisions they, too, have value opinions about, one should expect a bit of a thumb on the scale even in this.
Once again Brett does not understand that professionalism can exist.
You could argue unconscious bias, maybe, but you seem to be contemplating conscious bias. Which is, as usual, a point of view of humanity that is way more cynical than observation indicates.
Look to your own experience - do your biases infect everything you do, or can you ignore them when they would interfere with what you wanted to do?
I think both forms of bias exist.
"do your biases infect everything you do, or can you ignore them when they would interfere with what you wanted to do?"
Suppose "what I wanted the customer to do" and "what the customer would do if I were straight with them" weren't the same thing?
As an engineer, there are times when my professional judgement conflicts with the interests of my employer; For instance, a customer might want something in a product, and I notice that they'd be much smarter to do it a different way, that doesn't involve sending money our way. This doesn't bias my advice, I'm giving it to my employer, not our customer, (And there's a mute button handy during teleconferences to make sure of that!) and they're free to ignore it unless there are safety implications. And they're NOT going to ignore it in those cases, they're not that stupid.
But the design of fuel rail or transmission solenoid components isn't really politically fraught, you know? I could count the times my professional judgement has conflicted with my ideology on the fingers of one hand, if I'd bee very careless in shop class.
Sarcastr0, assemble any group of people who do not habitually follow day to day political affairs, and try to get a discussion going about some recent controversy. They will compete to see who can belittle the discussion fastest, with each insisting on a more exaggeratedly cynical view of the government than the other guy.
Bellmore seems an exceptional case, which does not quite fit the pattern. He does follow political affairs. Problem is, he relies rigidly on an ideological take on everything. That renders him as ignorant about what is actually happening as the others are. Result? The same exaggerated cynicism, in comment after comment.
Sarcastr0, assemble any group of people who do not habitually follow day to day political affairs, and try to get a discussion going about some recent controversy. They will compete to see who can belittle the discussion fastest, with each insisting on a more exaggeratedly cynical view of the government than the other guy.
I'm sure the number of people that you know who "do not habitually follow day to day political affairs" numbers somewhere in the less than 10 range, for you to make a silly assertion like this.
Defunding higher eduction would probably get at least half of the way there....
Counterpoint.
"Foot-voting" is counterproductive towards political ignorance. IE "foot-voting" actively makes political ignorance worse.
By allowing voters to make bad choices in terms of their politicians or political choices, then "leave" the political division, it ensures that good long term choices are not made, while the consequences of bad long term choices can be avoided and "left" with whoever is left behind. Meanwhile, those polities which act as destinations for "foot voters" and have engaged in decades long decisions of good political choices and sacrifices have suddenly a large excess of "foot voters" who have made less than ideal choices.
In many ways "foot voting" is analogous to a group of people who engage in environmentally poor decisions (strip mining, strip logging, etc), then leave the area. The consequences of their actions are not impacted upon them, and they can then engage in a series of environmentally poor choices in their next area.
Instead, true political knowledge, especially long-term knowledge, is made over decades and generations of solid policy choices, where people remain in the same polity.
Armchair, there is something to what you say, but it does not go so far as to legitimately imply that folks who stay in the same polity thereby acquire wisdom. There are places where a polity makes unwise choices again and again, over decades. Smart people born into those communities leave them; others avoid moving in. West Virginia, for instance.
Armchair,
Your point about consequence- avoidance is taken but your argument is seriously lacking in that it ignores all other factors at play, including e.g. the greater incentive that polities have to please the populace when it that populace can more easily get out of Dodge if not satisfied (political leaders famously being averse to such things as brain drains and reduced tax bases).