Limited government will do less damage.
My fellow Americans, we are one ignorant bunch.
This is particularly true with regard to politics and
government, subjects about which the public is a howling void of
nescience. To say Americans don’t know much about politics and
government would be more than just an understatement. It would be
like saying a Galapagos tortoise doesn’t know much about medieval
French literature.
Ilya Somin — a law professor at George Mason University in
Fairfax — has written a book on the subject:
Democracy and Political Ignorance. In it, he shows
that Americans know woefully little about their political system,
have known very little for a long time, and are not likely to
change in the foreseeable future — because they have a very good
reason not to.
For instance: In 1964, only 38 percent of Americans knew the
Soviet Union, NATO’s principal enemy, was not a member of NATO. In
December 1994, the month after Republicans led by Newt Gingrich
took control of Congress, 57 percent of Americans had never even
heard of him. In 2003, 70 percent of Americans were unaware of the
passage of Medicare Part D, “the biggest new government program in
several decades.”
Fifty-eight percent of Americans cannot name the three branches
of government; 70 percent cannot name their state’s senators; 72
percent cannot name two or more of the rights guaranteed by the
First Amendment.
Before you start cursing, note that Americans have very little
incentive to know such basic things, and even less to study more
abstruse details such as the content of specific legislation. (In
2009, only a quarter of Americans knew “cap and trade” addressed
environmental issues rather than, say, health care or finance.)
This is because the cost, in time and effort, of becoming an
informed voter is fairly high. And what do you get for it? Precious
little. It isn’t polite to say so, but votes usually matter only in
the aggregate. Your one vote in, say, a presidential election will
have almost no chance of changing the outcome, and therefore
roughly zero effect on your life personally. Hence, Somin writes,
“For most people, the benefits of devoting more than minimal time
and effort to learning about politics are greatly outweighed by the
costs.”
Granted, there are exceptions — the political junkies who get
the same enjoyment from politics that sports junkies get from
sports. Sports fans often know a great deal, even though they
cannot affect the outcome of the games. (Not even with their lucky
hats.) Political fans, Somin writes, likewise “derive enjoyment
from rooting for their preferred parties, candidates, ideologies,
and interest groups, while deriding the opposition. They … also
derive satisfaction from having their pre-existing views validated,
and from a sense of affiliation with a group of like-minded
people.”
So does the team-sports model rescue democracy from the pit of
ignorance? Hardly — because partisan activism is, in important
ways, even worse than disengagement. Partisans may know more, but
their knowledge is often selective. On top of that, they use it in
highly biased ways — primarily to reinforce their existing views
and reject new information that challenges their cherished dogmas.
And they often tune in to news sources (Fox News, MSNBC) that
facilitate close-mindedness.
This renders partisans more susceptible to false beliefs that
cement their team loyalty: Democrats are more likely than
independents to believe “truther” conspiracies alleging that George
W. Bush knew in advance about 9/11, and Republicans are more likely
than independents to believe “birther” claims that President Barack
Obama was born abroad. It also leads partisans to reject truths
that do not square with their partisan leanings. In one series of
studies, Democrats completely ignored a factual correction in
George W. Bush’s favor. Republicans were even worse, believing a
false claim in Bush’s favor even more strongly after seeing it
corrected.
Are there any remedies? Perhaps. We could delegate more
decision-making to experts. But this only adds a layer to the
problem. The experts still would have to be held accountable by
elected officials, and ignorant voters “are likely to be poor
monitors of elected officials’ supervision” of the experts. On the
other hand, if the experts are not supervised, then there is no way
to ensure they are pursuing the public interest.
We also could limit voting to the knowledgeable. But not only
would this be grossly undemocratic, it wouldn’t improve matters,
for the reasons just described.
Somin suggests two structural remedies. One involves handing
over more decision-making to smaller political units — states, or
even municipalities — which would allow people to vote with their
feet. People who vote with their feet tend to educate themselves
first. (Think about how much research you put into buying a house
or a car.) And they educate themselves because they know their
“vote” — to live on a cul-de-sac, or move to Seattle, or buy a
Toyota instead of a Ford — will be the decisive one. When you vote
with your feet, the “election” is heavily rigged to produce the
outcome you want.
The other structural change? Limit the scope of government. For
Somin, the reason is straightforward: A smaller government means
deeper knowledge. If the public will learn, say, only 100 things
about the executive branch, then it will know a lot more about each
agency if there are five agencies rather than 50. There is an
“inverse relationship between the size … of government” and “the
ability of voters to have sufficient knowledge” to vote
intelligently.
For the rest of us, there may be another reason: A smaller
government, even in the hands of Those Ignorant Bums on the Other
Side, will do less damage than a big one can. When power is
decentralized, you can flee to another state if things get too bad
in your current one. When Washington is in charge of everything,
the cost of voting with your feet gets much, much higher.
Each of these approaches has downsides — though not necessarily
the ones you might think. For instance, the cost of moving would
seem at first blush to impede “foot voting” by the poor. In fact,
Somin notes, “households with an income under $5,000 per year are
actually twice as likely to make interstate moves as the population
as a whole.”
That’s just one of the many insights to come out of a book on
ignorance that is, perhaps paradoxically, highly informative.
Copied complete for your reading pleasure from:
http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/28/small-government-is-the-cure-for-voter-i