Health Care Debate: Beyond an Informed Electorate

When I try to imagine an informed electorate, I remember all the forces that lie to and scare the ignorant among us. And the media that wont lift a finger to stop them.

It's a pleasant fiction to believe it's happening with equal frequency across the political spectrum. But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party, and it's embodied perfectly in their spokeswoman.

This lesson dearly needs to begin by being taught to proponents of the current health care effort, who need it the most, for a number of reasons.

Hopefully it might be learned before whatever revisions happen starting next month are made and pursued.

It has little to do with the classics, or holding local "Jefferson meetings," or similar things insofar as the content of the various bills in progress in Congress are concerned. (Little to do with past history of public service and the public role in health care, either.)

Pete, if you haven't read the threads recently I would.

Elrod (which actually is the epitome of what you are calling for)

Dorian and here

Polimom and here

It was written that Kathy's post here had good discussion (which i have not read)

And to toot my own horn a bit I thought I had some good ones (here, here and here)

I apologize to anyone else I've missed, that was mostly just from the front page. But yeah, I woudln't sell us short.

I agree with mikkel- the posts recently on TMV have been increasingly thoughtful and thought provoking on this topic- and I think in those links that mikkel pointed out it's also apparent that the discussions in the comments tend to follow the lead of the blogpost author in tone, humility, nonpartisanship, and introspection (with some exceptions, of course, as is expected in blogtopia.)

Mikkel, CStanely: Your points are fair and duly noted. I have revised the concluding paragraphs of the post accordingly. Thank you.

"This lesson dearly needs to begin by being taught to proponents of the current health care effort, who need it the most, for a number of reasons."

[citation needed]

It's a pleasant fiction to believe it's happening with equal frequency across the political spectrum. But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party, and it's embodied perfectly in their spokeswoman.

Well said, Chris. Thank you for consistently cutting through the.....

It's a pleasant fiction to believe it's happening with equal frequency across the political spectrum. But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party, and it's embodied perfectly in their spokeswoman.

ROTFLMAO

Gee can you go any more against the vein of the original post? Nope, you can't. Pure Partisan BS. Thank you for laying on another steaming pile of.....

Leonidas,
Funny that you single me out for going against the grain of the post and not fellow rightwinger DLS. I guess that means you're full of pure partisan BS.

Nope, sorry wrong answer. DLS did not post " But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party" in this thread, if he did I'd have called him on it too. When you make such ignorant commentary, expect to be singled out.

BTW I'm not a right-winger. I voted for Bush as many times as I suspect you have zero. I vored for a democrat as my House Resprentative for the last 6 years. And I've been critical of both parties, now that the democrats are in power, I target them more but what do you expect, they control all 3 branches of government and have a filibuster proof majority? You see Fiscally I'm very conservative, Socially I'm quite liberal. On areas that touch on both or neither I tend to be moderate. First and foremost I'm a Constitutionalist and a Burkean who believes in measured and well thought out change. The Republican party fits my beliefs better than the Democratic party, but I do not give them a pass where they don't.

Leonidas,
So when I say rightwingers need to heed the lessons, that's "Partisan BS," but when DLS says essentially the same thing, he gets a pass. Okay...

And dude, in the other thread you posted a video from Fox News and now you've said "The Republican party fits my beliefs better than the Democratic party." You're a rightwinger.

"[citation needed]"

None needed. No game-playing demands accepted.

Anyone willing to look at this site (including the starts of so many threads) and the comments, who also knows how to read, already knows.

" DLS says essentially the same thing"

I have pushed back at misconduct and nonsense a number of times (while letting other examples also deserving of this go) from a legitime position (instead). Too bad if some whine about it when it's not PC.

"DLS did not post ' But proud ignorance is the domain of one political party'"

In fact, I have been critical of the GOP as well as of the Dems; it's simply that the Dems are usually worse, not to mention the nature of the start of so many threads on this site as well as content from the lefties that respond with comments. What I have noticed numerous times (even if I have corrected the practice) is that many people ignorantly (or for worse reasons) assume or presume I'm taking some GOP stance, etc., simply when I identify the many things wrong that the Democrats currently are doing, as well as the numerous incorrect statements and poor examples of behavior by lefties on this site. (In fact, as that isn't my primary motive, anyway -- with health care, I've provided several suggestions much better than what the Dems are seeking that are examples of _true_ reform and obvious improvement over the status quo, yet these are either ignored or dishonestly disparaged as "Republican talking points," etc, ad nauseum).

Chris, you were being illogical, as you have been before from time to time. No, I did not single you out. I saw no comments when I made my original posting, and responded to what Pete wrote to start this thread, that's all. It's a shame you mis-responded, and went on to make other false charges from there.

"You see Fiscally I'm very conservative, Socially I'm quite liberal"

Too bad the Republicans haven't learned that. (Earth to lefties: The serious problem there is with the first part, not the idiotically-hyped second.)

"fellow rightwinger DLS"

Actually, I'm moderate, standard American center-right. (Only the far left wants ambitious Dem efforts as we've seen this year, yanking the nation far too quickly, too far to the left, something relatively [very] few Americans voted for -- Obama was counted on to be "safe and sane" and not supporting and insisting on things like the climate craziness and the hugely inept as well as destructively threatening health care stuff.)

On the bell curve I'd be within Z = +1 (standard deviation) if not definitely inside Z = 0.675 (mean + 50%). No wingy-ness there, with me.

And dude, in the other thread you posted a video from Fox News and now you've said "The Republican party fits my beliefs better than the Democratic party." You're a rightwinger.

OMG! I posted a link to a Fox News video I'm a right-winger, I'm a Klansman, I'm a Nazi!

Did it ever occur to you that being more comfortable with the Republican platform than the Democratic one is a valid centrist position? The same can be said for centrist who lean Democratic.

"No, I did not single you out."

[in anticipation of the charges]

But I should clarify and correct:

"I remember all the forces that lie to and scare the ignorant among us. And the media that wont lift a finger to stop them."

Fear, with "climate change" and its associated alarmism and catastrophism in addition to mere dishonesty and political posturing by the lefties (a celebrity among whom winning a Pee-Cee Nobel in the process), is echoed with the dishonesty about the health care "crisis" [sic] and the childish "need" to rush to Do Something, NOW! (which as we see is inept, incoherent, but clearly of a destructive nature).

The media are among those engaging in these tactics. Their fingers and hands are lifted and recruited (often self-recruited). Must I watch info-tainment Clearly Not Neutral and encounter another "roundtable" proponent-ditz-fest-of-the-hour about health care ("EXTREME CHALLENGES ... MAKE OR BREAK MONTH ON HEALTH CARE")?

* * *

"The Republican party fits my beliefs better than the Democratic party, but I do not give them a pass where they don't."

That, among so many Americans, explains the results of 2006 as well as 2008. No mandate for left extremism! (And the demagoguery, dishonesty, and worse we're seeing in support of ObamaCare.)

"OMG! I posted a link to a Fox News video I'm a right-winger, I'm a Klansman, I'm a Nazi!"

This is _too_ easy.

It's time (while I take a break from killing and eating children) for a fascist Klan tsunami:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240529702...

An informed electorate also means an educated electorate and a well-educated population takes many years and considerable ongoing effort to establish. The fact that so many fear tactics have been used with respect to health care reform and have worked so well implies that many people take the message presented as fact and never question the motives that may be behind the message. This implies that good education is often lacking since an educated individual usually questions such simplistic messaging. Similarly, humility comes from thinking about actions and their consequences in depth and not from sticking to dogmatic rules concerning the way things "should be". If health care reform does succeed, it will be in spite of many opinions formed without facts that are based solely on "internal truths" that would not change regardless of any evidence presented.

Well it's good to see everybody has gotten back to the usual BS that distracts from the topic.

HELLO

Not all conservatives are Nazis and not all Liberals are socialists.

That being said, broad stroke generalizations on BOTH sides merely interfere with intelligent conversations. Any who wish to throw bombs, please go out into the hall where no body elses intelligence will be threatened.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled intelligent discussion....

Hmmm. An odd thought just came to me (ignore me if it's altogether *too* odd, but...) -- do you think the electorate was, at one time, more informed? More able to see through the b.s.?

I ask this because I suspect they were.

People often blame the media for this apparent gap, but I'm wondering whether we haven't abandoned something essential in our education of our children. In the increasingly "square peg square hole" schools, they are not taught to question or challenge -- to think -- in a way that will serve them when they must later sift and sort between political and social input.

Like I said... .just a thought...

Polimom wrote: "I'm wondering whether we haven't abandoned something essential in our education of our children. In the increasingly "square peg square hole" schools, they are not taught to question or challenge -- to think -- in a way that will serve them when they must later sift and sort between political and social input."

That seems to be precisely the point of Slouka’s essay.

Reading about the history of American democracy....I seriously doubt it. In fact the entire notion of a "non-partisan" based news industry is rather peculiar both in time and space, look at Hearst et. al. I think it's just more noticeable now as a function of growing power and importance both domestically and internationally.

Polimom

I don't know about you, but my education had to be self-directed. Let me know if this is too obtuse an answer to your question. BTW - great series of posts at TMV.

"an individual capable of humility in the face of complexity; an individual formed through questioning and therefore unlikely to cede that right; an individual resistant to coercion, to manipulation and demagoguery in all their forms."

I would submit that the individual described here does not evolve from either philosophic or political loyalty. There are a number here who have stated that even though they see themselves as either liberals or conservatives, they cannot fully support Dems or Repubs respectively. The political parties do not truly represent either end of the spectrum simply because they are more interested in propagating their party than forwarding a philosophy. That much is apparent by the repeated votes and positions that actually go against their stated beliefs. A Blue Dog example that has come up in the health care debate where they demand that the government should not negotiate drug prices. Examples on the Republican side can easily be produced, but I do not want to digress.

The individual must also become aware that tying oneself to a specific philosophy also allows for manipulation and coercion. If one is strictly conservative or liberal, I submit you can miss solutions simply because they originate on the other "side." That's fine if you wish to keep your outlook "pure," but isn't finding solutions outweigh any point of view?

Jefferson was one who held that the Constitution limited the government to strictly defined rights, and that those not enumerated were illegal. That's a classic conservative reading of how our government should work. His purchase of all land west of the Mississippi, however, breaks the very tenet of the constructionist view. Who would argue this liberal interpretation that allowed the purchase was a mistake? It seems to me that some problems and opportunities should be examined outside the usual intellectual confines of our held beliefs.

Health care is one of those problems. I think we proved that neither side has the solution. Any real solution will require everybody dropping the internal rhetoric as much as the usual debating tactics. Neither the Left nor the Rights has an answer to this question.

Maybe this is all obvious to everyone here. Maybe not.

I think Slouka is right when it says we should be more questioning, but I don't know that the humanities is necessarily the way to prepare you for that. Slouka is a professor in the humanities so could be a bit biased himself.

University humanities departments tend to be politically homogeneous - if his premise was true wouldn't you expect them to have a wide range of opinions and continually question their own political beliefs?

I would think a broad-based education including economics, humanities and science would be more the ideal.

"Who would argue this liberal interpretation that allowed the purchase was a mistake?"

A lot of people at the time, there were murmurs to impeach him over it. It'd have been interesting what Jefferson thought about the civil war.

"I think Slouka is right when it says we should be more questioning, but I don't know that the humanities is necessarily the way to prepare you for that."

At one time, the classic liberal education was considered the way to a questioning, open mind. The humanities are just a part of that, as I understand it. I wonder whether the terminology ("Liberal? OMG!!!) is part of the decline.
:-p

University humanities departments tend to be politically homogeneous

And I never have fully understood why that is. (Note, this isn't necessarily true in the case of criminal justice, which also falls under a liberal arts degree, or used to.)

The notion of objectivity in American news was a short-lived fiction - and always a fiction - that lasted from the Progressive Era of the 1910s until the 1980s. Before that time the news media was openly and blatantly partisan and ideological. Since the 1980s that traditional approach has re-emerged in force. Just look at Memeorandum and notice the nature of blog swarms around various topics. The Right jumps at one issue and completely ignores another; the Left does the same thing with a different issue. On rare sites like TMV there is (at times) an attempt to reach across these blogospheric zones.

The reason we jump to hyper-partisan/ideological sources is that they are comforting. And that is especially so when your side is out of power. I remember feeling so despondent over the Iraq War that I was reading Counterpunch for the tonic. It just felt good to read and see other people out there who detested Bush like I did. Not long afterwards other more moderately liberal sites ramped up their attacks on Bush and I stopped reading true radical sites like Counterpunch. I suppose the same thing is happening on the right. Conservatives don't necessarily agree with all the rhetoric out of the Tea Party movement, but they do find it comforting that at least somebody is speaking up on their side. Eventually the Tea Partiers become no longer needed and are marginalized the way Cindy Sheehan eventually was by most of the Left. But that only happens when more mainstream people start channeling the anger.

"I wonder whether the terminology ("Liberal? OMG!!!) is part of the decline."

No. (The word "liberal" is avoided because liberalism is on the defensive after suffering discreditation, especially since 1980. That's why even liberals often avoid using the word to describe themselves. I have only seen one or two posters on this liberal site use the word rather than misuse "moderate" or "centrist"; it's even more important when viewing politicians and political commentary and (contemporary) literature.

Liberal arts are in decline because of a decade-long trend of change about what higher ed is for, and what it should be (for). For ages the function of higher education (other than as a farm team for pro sports and locus of vast corruption, in the case of big-time college sports) has changed from a detached, higher-learning, well-rounding-of-the-person, enlightenment to glorified (when not plainly down and dirty) vocational training.

This may be related to what Jazz Shaw wrote earlier about an obvious phenomenon that has developed over the decades (especially since the 1973 oil shock and other setbacks in the 1970s, as I wrote there), that our expectations are diminishing. (And we're inclined to be on the defensive at the same time.)

Da Goat --

Perhaps the motivation by Slouka is related not only to something shared by the media and government,

"University humanities departments tend to be politically homogeneous"

but by the nature of what is shared, and how it pertains to those nasty public health care meetings now.

mikkel
Agreed
That's the point I was trying to make. Jefferson, the consummate constructionist, went counter to his prevailing philosophy due to the opportunity that the purchase offered. Stepping outside of one's own preconceived conclusions is the essence of education.

"Stepping outside of one's own preconceived conclusions is the essence of education."

The educated infererence from Jefferson or other constitutionally questionable acts is "the ends justify the means."

(And that requires too much clarity as well as conciseness to befit the current Dem health care effort!)

DLS

Ok

From where does you conservative leanings come? Did they come to you in one piece, are they synthesized?

"From where does you[r] conservative leanings come?"

Outgrowing my liberalism of youth as I became educated, as well as from exposure to the real world.

Crickets

I think I found a way to avoid your typical drive by bombing. Just ask a question that requires introspection and personal thought.

You are there.

"exposure to the real world."

What pray tell, did the real world teach you about conservatism?

DLS

"Outgrowing my liberalism of youth as I became educated, as well as from exposure to the real world."

So you started as a liberal, something happened; (negative or positive?)

then the realities of the world confirmed that conservatism was the way to go. Is this what you mean?

Speaking only for myself, Hemm- I'm wondering what you mean by that last statement/question to DLS. If you mean that the realities of the world confirm that liberal ideology doesn't work very well even though it seems to promise a lot of things to a lot of people, then that is pretty much the way my views evolved. I have a feeling though that your statement is more along the lines of a suspicion that people shed their youthful liberalism for selfish motives, basically selling out on their idealism in order to reap the personal benefits that capitalism offers.

I guess I differ from some of the people who are liberal in their youth in that I was fairly conservative early on. But I do think I was more open minded about the ideas of liberalism before I became aware at how they were functioning in the real world, but after witnessing some of that and learning more history, I became more and more convinced that our founders were right to construct a narrow role for govt (federal govt in particular), and that a lot of liberal ideology is based on misguided utopianism.

I think it depends on when you grow up. The bulk of my life has been during times where the conservatives were the ones that were more utopian, holding the belief that free markets are magical and always produce optimal outcomes both economically and politically.

CS

My questions to DLS were related to my erlier post further up the thread. My contention there concerned what I thought education entailed. 9if you haven't, please ead that entry.

The example of Jefferson was to the point. A man who held the center of constructionist thinking in his time then chose to act upon an opportunity for the country that outweighed his stated position. Some see this as hypocracy or self-serving pragmatism. The Louisianna Purchase is duly taught as an historic footnote, but few consider that Jefferson may have been more than a constructionist - our label; he was an educated man who saw in that oportunity an example of some national goal that out-weighed his own position's strength. In other words, by accident or design, Jefferson's own actions found the exception to the lock step construction ism he used against Hamilton's first bank of America.

As to your path to conservatism, you also have demonstrated to me that yow see that some ideas are worthy in their own right despite their origins. I certainly don't want to put words or interpretation of your statements from inside my view point. By all means, please clarify and expand as you will. Tracing one's own path is part of any good education.

The health care debate is one of those decisions we have as a country that over-rides either left or right philosophy, and I think that this what we've seen in the past few threads via Polimom. Ideas have no philosophic leaning, and the current problem of health care will require the very best from both sides to solve.

I think it depends on when you grow up.

OK, so rub it in that I'm older than you are, why don't you? :-)

Seriously though, I see what you mean, but I also think that liberals tend to vastly overstate (and perhaps misunderstand?) conservatives' viewpoints in that regard. Buckley used to point out that conservatism isn't even an ideology, it's a nonideology- because it basically says that things will never be perfect but that often the best laid plans of men go awry and that's why we should always be skeptical of centralized planning.

And really it's only the staunch libertarians who might be described the way you describe modern conservatives- CATO certainly comes to mind and although I refer to their analyses a lot I also find that their lack of desire to find conservative based solutions other than pure unfettered free market policies is frustrating, and unhelpful.

mikkel

I don't know your age, but conservatism's view I believe comes from the fact that WWII was won by our industrial base. Of course, conservative politics are different from conservative philosophy, it's just that too few people see the distinction. The politics over simplify the goals, and so when Eisenhower spoke of the Military-Industrial Complex, it's significance was hidden behing the red scare of the 1950s.

IMO anyway.

"Buckley used to point out that conservatism isn't even an ideology, it's a nonideology- because it basically says that things will never be perfect but that often the best laid plans of men go awry and that's why we should always be skeptical of centralized planning."

Yeah and a lot of the prominent young liberals like Ezra Klein say the same thing about liberalism now, except instead of be skeptical of centralized planning trying to make perfection, they talk about the government being able to take off the excesses of the market.

I think over time ideological labels mean very little. I've often thought about Jung and Huxley being two steadfast anti-rationalists, but reading their reasoning, it was obvious that they were responding against the Victorian era born mechanical viewpoint of the world. If they came along a few decades later, they would most likely been rather conservative and rational compared the hippie movement that they inadvertently spawned.

"I also find that their lack of desire to find conservative based solutions other than pure unfettered free market policies is frustrating, and unhelpful."

I dunno, rhetorically speaking, I think that strain has dominated the Republican party economically.

mikke
"I think over time ideological labels mean very little. I've often thought about Jung and Huxley being two steadfast anti-rationalists, but reading their reasoning, it was obvious that they were responding against the Victorian era born mechanical viewpoint of the world."

Maybe they were merely educated in the way I was alluding to. At some point any of the "isms" fail the real world. No one who examines his or her own thought process stays within another's constructed bubble of thought.

I dunno, rhetorically speaking, I think that strain has dominated the Republican party economically.

No, I strongly disagree. Rhetorically (and transferring into policy) IMO, the problem with the GOP brand of conservatism has mainly been the Club For Growth and Grover Norquist messaging that attempts to equate fiscal conservatism with lowering taxes at all times. The spending side has meanwhile not been constrained at all.

I guess I'd agree that in rebutting Democratic govt expansion policies, the GOP hasn't been forthright in offering alternatives but instead focuses on trying to turn people against those policies...and in the absence of offering alternatives, people default to the assumption that conservatives believe that unrestrained free markets can cure all ills.

But anyway- I'm disagreeing with that statement you made because I don't know any libertarians who feel that their philosophy has been even marginally displayed by the GOP in recent years.

I'm not sure, that was kind of my point. Their self identification and interests were a direct response to the ideological frameworks and definitions that were around during their formative years. Sagan reminds me a lot of Huxley in a lot of their viewpoints, but he spent his life focusing on rational inquiry, instead of denouncement of it. That's because to Huxley scientific statism was the greatest threat to individuality and inquiry while Sagan grew up when superstition was. And they were a generation removed.

I forgot to mention the irony that the mechanistic viewpoint that Huxley argued against formed form Newtonian-Darwinism, and that Huxley's grandfather was one of the most pivotal people in pushing Darwinism (although not the idea it was mechanistic)...which is what in part drove Sagan's ideas of beauty.

So yeah, I think that they did think the way you alluded to, but I'm not sure if they rose above their time periods, and may have reflexively been wary of each other despite the fact that their definitions of the ideologies were completley different.

Well I obviously agree with you totally cs about what they *actually* do but that isn't their messaging (which is why I said rhetorically). I am just contrasting that with the Eisenhower/Nixon conservatism.

I miss Buckley, he was a great contributer to Conservative thought, perhaps the greatest since Burke, possible exception of Milton Friedman, but Friedman was really an economics guy and not a political science guy.

"do you think the electorate was, at one time, more informed? More able to see through the b.s.?"

I'm in my 20s so I won't pretend to have first-hand knowledge of the "good ol' days", but I've heard that when people refer to the "good ol' days", they are usually remembering things with rose colored glasses. I suspect that in general people aren't any less informed than they used to be. The difference though, is that politics is no longer an issue for the elite. Changes in our media has brought it to the level of the common people. This is mostly for the better, I believe, but also has the negative side effect of a less-informed discourse as people like me leave comments on blogs thinking they know everything when they don't:).

I'm reminded of what Bob Scheiffer said at the close of the last "Face the Nation" (emphasis mine): http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_082309.pd...

BOB SCHIEFFER: Lyndon Johnson was the best there ever was at getting Congress off the dime. The Civil Rights bills he passed are just part of the proof, and it got some of us to wondering how LBJ would have handled the current health care mess.

I thought of my friend, Bill Stuckey. The day after he won a Georgia congressional seat as a very young man, LBJ dispatched a government plane to Georgia, flew Stuckey to Andrews Air Force Base, transferred him to a helicopter which took him directly to the White House lawn. There, he was taken into the Oval Office where the President met him, put his arm around him, and said, “Son, I’m going to need your help.”

From that moment, Stuckey said, I never voted against him.

In a post on The Daily Beast, former LBJ aide Tom Johnson recalled more of the Johnson treatment and how it worked. He said LBJ kept a list of Congress members on his desk along with every special request they had ever made, from things like personal White House tours to federal projects. He personally horsetraded with each of them.

He had Billy Graham calling the Baptists, Cardinal Cushing calling the Catholics, Henry Ford calling the Republicans, and Jack Valenti would have called the pope if needed.

He sent pictures to their kids and cufflinks to the members. He knew their financial contributors and pressured them to pressure the members. He prayed at six different churches, threatened, cajoled, flirted, flattered, hugged, and finally got the bill passed.

*I guess that wouldn’t work in today’s sophisticated world, but it sure worked then*

While it might have been smart politics back then, that doesn't sound to me to be a more informed political debate. It sounds like the politics I know.

So, while I'm by no means a political historian, I'm skeptical that the general public ever was more informed, just perhaps less involved.

HemmD, DLS, and CStanley,

I have a theory that the ideology of a particular generation generally negatively correlates with which party is in office as they reach the voting age. That would explain, for example, why so many younger people supported Obama, since they grew up knowing mostly only Bush as president. If my theory is correct, we should expect the next round of young voters to lean more Republican (I doubt they would be a majority Republican, as there are also other factors as play, but I would expect them to be at least more Republican than in 2008).

My reasoning is that since both parties are usually blatantly partisan and generally slimy, it is easy to look at the ruling party and be critical. That's not a problem, as I support being critical of the government no matter who is in charge. But it is also easy to look at the minority party and think, "If only they could be in power, all of these problems would be solved." Thus a partisan is born. By the time the minority party gets in power, sometimes the ideology is too far sunken in and the blatant partisanship and generally sliminess is overlooked.

I'm not saying that is the case for any of the commenters here, I'm just saying that I wonder about that pattern in the population in general. In some ways that would be a good thing, since it would prevent any one party from being in power for too long.

Here you go: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/bush-may...

"I would think a broad-based education including economics, humanities and science would be more the ideal."

I agree. I especially think economics education is lacking, although that's probably just because I lean conservative. But actually both sides often ignore basic economic principles. (Blatant self-promotion alert) I've written about that here: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/e...

Thanks for the link mikkel. I think I have actually read that, and that's where I must have gotten the idea. Actually looking at the graph I admit it's more complicated than I described (if a president is popular, it can have the opposite effect), but still the basic point is made that political ideology is somewhat formed based on who is president at the time the voter turns 18. It is especially interesting to note the sharp turns in ideology that correlate with shifts in power, such as LBJ/Nixon and Clinton/Bush.

That doesn't say much for our open-mindedness as we get older, I suppose.

I agree and have commented about it on social issues before (http://themoderatevoice.com/25108/gay-marriage-...) Also, there is similar data about less serious things like musical tastes as well. In general people's opinions and preferences are fixed by the time they reach their mid-20s.

mikkel


"Their self identification and interests were a direct response to the ideological frameworks and definitions that were around during their formative years."

I believe one runs a risk of missing the significant factor in how people come to their own system of beliefs. Where it's useful to classify others within their philosophic environment, analyzing the process of a person's education oversimplifies that process if one relies upon taxonomy to describe it. For me, it's never been a Chinese menu; one from column A and two from column B may in fact be choices I make, but those choices come not from reading the menu, but more from having inimate knowledge of the cook.

"I've often thought about Jung and Huxley being two steadfast anti-rationalists, but reading their reasoning,"

This is the very insight I was alluding to in Jefferson, and the education these three exhibit shows that truth for them was an amalgam of personal thought not limited by any particular system. No one system encompassed the world they viewed, so they blended ideas according to their own lights. This kind of education allows for solutions to be drawn as needed regardless of its source. An electorate thus educated is "resistant to coercion, to manipulation and demagoguery in all their forms."

It may be that you have seen this at the outset of this thread. The strictly partisan lines that line these threads demonstrate to me that many neither see that synthasis of thought nor do they stop to consider that process on a personal basis.

You mention Jung and Huxley as two anti-rationalists who methodically described that philosophy within the framewok of rational analysis. My example of Jefferson, the constructionist who found reason to extend a government's rights to make a land purchase. All three demonstrate the characteristic of an education that as not self limiting and so they found solutions to the problem before them that flew in the face of everyday orthodoxy.

What has been my frustration with TMVs discussion of health care is the current political orthodoxy that would have made Jefferson a flip flopper and Huxley a drug addict. The answer to our problem requres the same kind of synthesis of ideas across the political lines that have steadfastly been maintained.

Thanks

adelinesdad,

I have a theory that the ideology of a particular generation generally negatively correlates with which party is in office as they reach the voting age. That would explain, for example, why so many younger people supported Obama, since they grew up knowing mostly only Bush as president. If my theory is correct, we should expect the next round of young voters to lean more Republican (I doubt they would be a majority Republican, as there are also other factors as play, but I would expect them to be at least more Republican than in 2008).

I pretty much concur with your general thoughts here, but I'm uncertain who will hold the majority of the youth vote.

Some of the other factors I see in play

1) the liberal tendencies of youth (advantage D)
2) Record Deficits they will inherit (advantage R)
3) Betrayal as "Hope and Change" becomes politics as usual (advantage R)
4) The Religious Right (advantage D)
5) War in Afganistan (advantage D)
6) Gay rights (advantage D)
7) The poor job market (advantage R)

add to those the factor you mentioned
8) Disatisfaction with Party in Power (advantage R)

and you get a pretty equal slate.

Now two other related factors,

9) Tendency to get more conservative with age (advantage R)
10) Tendency of young Americans not to vote (advantage R, due to last wave being pro-democratic)

and Republicans should make some good gains.

I agree completely that we need those type of people, although I am unsure whether it has anything to do with education. I personally have what I call the 5% rule, which is that I find that roughly 5% of people seem to have that ability and it's independent of their ideological sympathies. I am very process oriented and I value cstanley way more than the vast majority of people that on the surface share my values. This is because they haven't come to it through synthesis and don't understand the implications, giving them less flexibility or ability to think about something new.

I've met quite a few people that aren't highly educated that think like this, the only difference is that they don't have the knowledge base to make allusions and aren't elegant in their presentation. But I find the concrete simplicity of that understanding refreshing, as talking in the abstract about people that have been dead for years is intellectually stimulating, but someone referencing their own life in those terms is a validation. I have thought about this for many years and have come to the belief that the number of those people is relatively constant throughout time, and what changes is whether society values them or not.

mikkel

"I have thought about this for many years and have come to the belief that the number of those people is relatively constant throughout time, and what changes is whether society values them or not."

I concur but have reached a slightly different analysis of the 5% rule, most everybody has the ability to see outside their ideological sympathies, but at best, they make use of it 5% of the time. This is not intended to be too cute by half.

People's lives are driven by intellectual routines because the brain itself derives comfort from similarities. Try changing your morning routine before going to work to feel it firsthand. :) These routines are the same in how we come to examine higher function experiences also. Unfortunately, the effect of such reliance also desensitizes one to subtle changes occurring around us. At its worst, one can see people making the same mistakes in judgment over and over because they adhere to the Devil they know instead of entertaining an alternate view. Call it the Stockholm Syndrome of thought.

When one reads of history's "aha" moments, you see that briefly, a person has pushed through the habitual and finds the other side of the intellectual coin. Rationalist/antinationalist, conservative/liberal, any two seeming diametric opposites; when we note that person's transition we see how they have melded opposites that bring out new approaches.


As to education, starting at three years old, my daughter was known as "the pet lawyer" around our house. Always lobbying for every stray and quick to defend any pet offense. I explained to her that I would listen to any argument she made as long as she gave me three reasons and none of those were "Because I want to." That worked until she hit high school and found the debate team. I then got 7 reasons - with subsections - to every discussion we had.

Eventually, she developed the talent to argue either side of a debate with equal strength. That was when I finished her "education" by simply asking her one question. Which side is right?

BTW
I couldn't agree more with your about cstanley. You see the process at work there.

Aw, you guys are making me blush. ;-)

I was reflecting a bit about 'the process', and education, and the like, and that brought to mind that Polimom and I discovered a while back that we attended the same small (and excellent) high school in New Orleans. I can't speak for her, but I do feel that I learned very good critical thinking skills there (if she's reading, she may think of the same teacher that I'm recalling in particular.)

I didn't get a liberal arts higher education- by a longshot- I was on a fasttrack for a veterinary degree. But some of the critical thinking skills transfer over there too, with regard to analyzing technical writing and research data.

Going back farther than that, I did have a Dad like Hemm seems to be- who made me think things through very thoroughly. There wasn't a lot of those kinds of discussions regarding family matters- it was a fairly authoritarian household with Mom playing the lead role- but Dad was the politically minded individual in the household and though he didn't wear his politics on his sleeve he could always articulate and provoke thoughtful discussions.

My older brother and his friends were died in the wool libertarians, and I was too shy to participate but took a lot in. He definitely did go the humanities route- got a masters in philosophy from University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, and almost completed a PhD. He ended up coming home to join in my Dad's small business when Dad became ill, and now he owns the shop.

I've absorbed and read some philosophy at his recommendations, but mostly my observations are the kind Mikkel mentioned- from my own experiences.

"I have a theory that the ideology of a particular generation generally negatively correlates with which party is in office as they reach the voting age. [...] In some ways that would be a good thing, since it would prevent any one party from being in power for too long."

There's something to this, but I still hesitate. Youth are naturally liberal and even nowadays they avoid being identified as (or choosing to be) formally partisan -- that's why a lot of "independent" voters are often liberal but not identifying themselves as Democrats. (There's more room for proper identification if we ask not about Democrats and Republicans but Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning, if not liberal and conservative.)

I do notice that not only did the out-of-school electorate revive the Republicans after 1979 but this was to some extent accompanied by a revival where one would least expect it in modern times, on college campuses.

I'd also like to say that often it's not so much support of one party or another, but rejection of one or the other (the lesson I suspect many have never learned about both the 2006 and 2008 elections, as well as the 1994 elections and even the 1980 elections).

As to "one party or the other," I'm not one of the typical "progressive" or far-left activists who wants it (in large part as it's the only way their ideas will win some kind of official support, most of the time), but I am also in favor of changing from the Duopoly (there's no single kind of liberalism or conservatism, anyway) to four to six or more parties and proportional representation in state legislators and other government bodies such as the US House of Representatives (possibly regionally to aid the small states with less than five seats in the House).

I own the following person's book, and recommend the following person's Web site for interested readers.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm