Responsibility vs. Rights
I don’t normally resort to name-calling on this blog, but Ted Rall is an idiot. Here is what he says about voters who don’t know that Bush is rich, or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11:
The fact that these yahoos are allowed to vote is an abomination. Their ill-considered ballots cancel or dilute those cast by those who do the heavy lifting that makes them good citizens: keeping abreast of current events, researching issues, studying candidates’ positions.
He goes on to suggest that there be some kind of a political literacy test before you vote. Now, he is a cartoonist, so I suppose this is all some kind of joke - but it isn’t a funny one. Here’s the problem: Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. If you don’t then let the oligarchs rule the country and shut up. If you do, then everyone gets a vote. Period.
Let’s say there was a vote in your state about whether or not to allow factories to release gases into the air that could potentially destroy the ozone layer contribute to global warming [Thanks Mark!]. Now the actual effects of this policy are unclear, because one group of scientists say that the gases are going to accelerate global warming, while another group of scientists say that there is no evidence to that effect. Should you not be allowed to vote because you don’t know the first thing about atmospheric science? Should we have a test that checks whether or not you know how many carbon molecules there are in carbon-dioxide? Of course not. These are decisions that affect everyone and everyone should be allowed to have a say. How do you make a decision if you aren’t a scientist? You might do some research and teach yourself basic molecular chemistry, or you might do what most people do - follow the lead of those whose opinion you respect: friends, media personalities, newspaper editorials, or perhaps your political party, church, or other community organization. This is how democracy works. If you don’t like it, get out there and try to get people to join your party.
Sure, people have a responsibility to educate themselves, but they have a right to vote. There is a very important difference between the two.
This is historically important because every time the franchise has been extended - to men without property, to blacks, to women - there have been those who argued that the newly enfranchised voters would simply vote for their bosses, masters, or husbands. It was believed they would be mere tools without a voice of their own. In some countries, such as Australia and Brazil, there are laws that everyone must vote. People make the same arguments - that these votes are easily manipulated. But I would much rather live in a country where everyone was required by law to vote than in one that continued to block people’s right to vote. Moreover, if the Democrats win this year, it will be because they successfully enfranchised more voters, not because they limited the right to vote.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Here’s the problem: Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. If you don’t then let the oligarchs rule the country and shut up. If you do, then everyone gets a vote. Period.
True, but democracy is valuable only because it means that, theoretically, we get to run our own lives. It doesn’t mean that we collectively will make good decisions. Undemocratic decision-making produces bad decisions. But democratic decision-making by stupid people also produces bad decisions.
Mithras said:
democracy is valuable only because it means that, theoretically, we get to run our own lives. It doesn’t mean that we collectively will make good decisions
True. But I don’t necessarily agree that “decision-making by stupid people” necessarily has to produce bad decisions. Mostly because I don’t think people are stupid. They are ill-educated which is different. While Thud may be right that people have a responsibility to educate themselves, political parties also have a responsibility to educate voters. It is unfortunately a responsibility that the Republicans been taking much more seriously than the Democrats. I believe that if the Democrats want to see smarter voters they need to take this responsibility more seriously. Of course, funding basic education would also help…
political parties also have a responsibility to educate voters. It is unfortunately a responsibility that the Republicans been taking much more seriously than the Democrats.
If by “educate”, you mean “lie to”, then yes, Republicans have been doing a much better job. For example, take the Saddam-9/11 belief Rall points to. The incorrect belief that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks persists in the face of repeated education about the lack of any such connection. This is because (a) the Republicans have been relentless in rhetorically associating Saddam and 9/11 and (b) people want to believe the enemy is monolithic and US actions are justified. And when Democrats (and the news media) point out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, they are ignored and ridiculed as “Saddam lovers.”
This example is repeated over a substantial number of issues. I think it’s therefore reasonable to conclude that many people ignore correct information and believe incorrect information when the truth does not fit a preconceived notion. Or, to put it more simply, they’re dumb.
The question is, what to do? We can continue to try to educate people. But that’s sort of like trying to get someone who doesn’t speak your language to understand by raising your voice. Alternatively, we can become good at re-framing the issue to find a hook that fits some other preconceived notion, but one that favors the correct interpretation. This isn’t education, at least, not by my lights.
It’s noble to assume that everyone is rational and just needs the right information to make good decisions. I just don’t think it’s realistic or smart politics.
Open Thread
Ted’s column can be boiled down to the following statement: stupid and ignorant people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Feel free to post your favorite wildly ignorant quote from Ted out of his columns or cartoons in the comments. ALSO:…
As I’ve written before, I do agree that a certain degree of willful ignorance is responsible; but I disagree that we can reduce the educational value of a political party to a few statements made to the press. The Republicans have laid out a broad ideological agenda and an institutional framework to promote that agenda. It takes a generation for these think tanks to have their effect, but now the government is being run along the ideological lines laid out by the likes of the heritage institute and such. The Democrats are only now beginning to lay the groundwork for a similar institutional framework. But this will, of course, not be enough. In order for the Democrats message to have any effect they will need to undue the ongoing process of media consolidation, which is not something they have show much interest in doing. After the elections one of the few sane voices on television, Bill Moyers show “Now”, will be cut down to half an hour and PBS will “balance” it with a show run by the neo-fascists on the Wall Street Journal editorial board. It takes long term planning, political will, and real leadership to create an educated voting public, it isn’t something that just happens over night. Even if people are willfully ignorant, they are so against their own self-interests, so we need to educate them as to what is truly in their own interest.
You’re absolutely right about Ted Rall and democraqcy.
But your example about chemicals, ozone and global warming is kind of confused. There aren’t any scientists who think that destroying the ozone layer has anything significant to do with global warming, as far as I know. The ozone layer protects the earth’s surface from solar ultraviolent rays, which can disrupt ecosystems (e.g. of oceanic plankton). But it don’t influence temperature — that’s C02 and methane and other “greenhouse gases” that block re-radiation of heat from the earth’s surface in the infrared range.
Both issues have to do with human influences on how much of what is in the atmosphere, and how that affects the earth via its interaction with the sun. But they’re completely separate. It’s kind of like getting worried that the charter school movement will harm the state university system — both have to do with schools, government and money, but that’s about it.
So if Rall were in power, you’d flunk the voter qualification test. Lucky he’s not!
Mark. Thanks for the clarification. I should have said “greenhouse gasses.” But, as you point out, my confusion does serve to make my point, even if it confuses it at the same time! And I’ve actually read a thing or two about the subject…
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
An anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, 
Except for believing that voting is a responsibility, not a right I tend to agree with you. I’m pretty impatient with people trying paint Al Franken or Molly Ivins with the Ann Coulter brush, but personally I think Ted Rall is a nutcase in the Michael Savage vein. His comics are funny because you can expect those to be hyperbolic (is that the right word?) but his columns do not appear to me to be meant as funny at all.