Thursday, September 04, 2008

We Need More Political Apathy

During this election cycle, but certainly not limited to it, I have noticed that people's political passion is not necessarily correlated to their political knowledge. This results in public support for damaging policies. It also skews the discussion away from candidates' stances on issues and into simpler topics (flag pins, home ownership or pregnancy). We don't see this problem in other areas of expertise. No one is passionate about changes in the medical field unless they are experts. No one condemns drivers for not being more active in their car repair. Instead they leave it to the experts. So why is the political world so different? Peer pressure.

We may be out of high school, but we still haven't escaped it. We regularly hear how it is our responsibility as a citizen to vote. Some even suggest it is our legal obligation. It seems that many organizations try to "get out the vote", "rock the vote", or threaten "vote or die." I'm not saying that the average person shouldn't care about politics. Instead, I am insisting that we not ostracize people who have little opinion. Many times their menial political opinion matches their poor political knowledge.

Finally, I don't think this issue is as controversial as it sounds. The electoral college, indirect election of Senators, and the ratification of the Constitution itself are all example of the Founding Fathers attempts set up structural boundaries to limit the influence of everyday citizens. The good news is that increases in technology has allowed information to flow more freely. That and the increase in education permits the changes in those laws. Let me restate, I do not condemn people for being politically active. But I do require the same of them that I do my doctor and mechanic. That they become knowledgeable on the subject and hopefully that will result in better political outcomes.

12 comments:

  1. Cheryl7:05 PM

    "It also skews the discussion away from candidates' stances on issues and into simpler topics (flag pins, home ownership or pregnancy)."
    - Does the fault really fall on the ignorant public, as you suggest? Or does it belong to the the political parties or politicians themselves who perseverate on that crap? Or hey, what about the mass media that panders to the political circus put on before an election? Why hate on the guy that doesn't know anything when politicians and the media (the supposed "experts" themselves) should know better?

    "We don't see this problem in other areas of expertise. No one is passionate about changes in the medical field unless they are experts. No one condemns drivers for not being more active in their car repair. Instead they leave it to the experts."
    - This argument doesn't really make sense. Doctors and auto mechanics provide service to those that lack the expertise. But it's those without the expertise deciding which doctor or auto mechanic to pick to provide them medical or repair service. And those without expertise may make a decision that they like their doctor or auto mechanic for purely superficial reasons - the guy/gal goes to their church, likes the same sport, or just seems nicer. And really, what's so wrong about doing it that way? But if the person without expertise feels like he needs a better doctor or mechanic, he seeks out information to find out who will provide the better service. The same goes for voting for politicians. The candidates are supposed to be serving the public, so the public needs to decide which politician to pick. You just have to have faith that people will decide they need better leadership and will seek out information on any possible leaders on their own.

    And btw, what kind of knowledge do you think should be required to be considered a political expert, and thus allow you to vote? Any life experiences (or lack thereof) you think help form a better point of view? Do you think you're knowledgeable enough? What about me?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Man, I saw the word "Cheryl" up there and I knew this was going to be good.

    I wouldn't go as far as you do, Harrison, but I would say voting just for the sake of voting is not a positive thing. Campaigns like "vote or die" are just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comments Cheryl! Here's what I am thinking:

    "Does the fault really fall on the ignorant public, as you suggest? Or does it belong to the the political parties or politicians [..] what about the mass media that panders to the political circus put on before an election?"
    I certainly do not consider politicians and media blameless when they say and do things simply for public approval. But at the end of the day that is how they continue to succeed, by seeking public approval. Television provides what viewers will watch. Shouldn't they? Politicians say and do what their constituents what. Shouldn't they? But people are responsible for what they think and do (especially when 75% have access to the Internet at home and almost all have a local library).

    "The candidates are supposed to be serving the public, so the public needs to decide which politician to pick."

    But the problem is many citizens vote out of obligation instead of ideology. This results in year after year of choosing poor candidates. My hope is that if "vote or die" will just die, there will be less static in the voting pool. The voter pool is not a group of well read and thorough citizens, instead they are systematically bias in many ways. Bryan Caplan recently published a book called "The Myth of the Rational Voter" (http://tiny.cc/iEj6Q). In it he discusses how voters have 4 main biases: Make-work Bias, Anti-foreign Bias, Pessimistic Bias, and Anti-Market Bias (http://tiny.cc/GupKq).

    "what kind of knowledge do you think should be required to be considered a political expert, and thus allow you to vote?"

    My intention was never to tell anyone they are not smart enough to vote. It was to suggest that if people don't feel they understand the issues, they shouldn't. My comments about the doctor and the mechanic were not to suggest we assume the politicians are experts and trust them, far from it. It was to question the pressure we put on people to be politically active. It was also a suggestion that we listen to the experts when it comes to things like the economy. We listen to doctors and mechanics when it comes to their expertise, but why not economists? Let me reiterate, politicians are not experts on politics, they are experts on getting reelected. Economists are experts on the economy, yet they hold very different beliefs than the average voter (http://tiny.cc/Er7nY).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Our problem is not that uneducated people vote, it's that not enough people vote at all.

    We need better, more accessible media to educate the people who do vote. I would like to know how the internet and the local library serve to educate the middle and lower classes. TV is the best tool to reach them and right now it's owned by 5 companies who care more about making a dollar than informing the public. Surely as an economist you agree that the way to make the most money is not to build a superior project, but to completely control the market and produce a shoddy one.

    We do listen to economists for the economy. They are our stock brokers - every large firm hires them, financial firms have a slew of them. We do not listen to them about social policy, because they're not experts in that. They believe in the market and free trade will solve massive problems like drugs based on theories which have never been tried and place no value in morality. I agree that many people do not listen to economists feelings on globalization - but this is because these people have had their livelihood taken away. If my car gets stolen I really couldn't care less about what my mechanic has to say about it.

    Of course, on the other hand, some people do listen. McCain in his speech Thursday night "Now, my opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We’re going to help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back find a new one that won’t go away."

    Sounds like he's your guy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Our problem is not that uneducated people vote, it's that not enough people vote at all."

    But Justin, if more people voted that would just mean more static in the choice. I say that because the biggest factor of whether you will vote or not is education. So for every extra voter you add, it will most likely drag down the average political knowledge of the voting pool (thereby giving worse political results).

    "Surely as an economist you agree that the way to make the most money is not to build a superior project, but to completely control the market and produce a shoddy one."

    No I'll have to disagree with that. It is quite difficult to control the market in the first place if you don't have a quality product. And once your product because comparably less quality, you begin to lose customers.

    "We do not listen to them about social policy, because they're not experts in that. They believe in the market and free trade will solve massive problems like drugs based on theories which have never been tried and place no value in morality."

    I don't think that statement is true. Economics is a very rigorous social science with theory at it's core, but with the data to support it. For example, I posted a literature review of on payday lending a couple of months ago (http://harrisonbrookie.weebly.com/1/post/2008/05/the-effects-of-payday-lending.html). All the papers discussed took real data from real states.

    But you are right, economists do stay away from issues of morality. But that is not a weakness, it is a strength. We will not tell you whether you should have a minimum wage or not. But we will show that it costs people their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "So for every extra voter you add, it will most likely drag down the average political knowledge of the voting pool (thereby giving worse political results)."

    I don't see your point. It's not government by the people if less than half the people do it.

    "It is quite difficult to control the market in the first place if you don't have a quality product. And once your product because comparably less quality, you begin to lose customers."

    Unless you have the ONLY product. Who are these lost customers going to go to?

    "We will not tell you whether you should have a minimum wage or not."

    It seems to me most libertarians do exactly that. Which is fine, I do the same thing.

    Don't hear me saying I think economics is hogwash or anything. But when I hear economics enthusiasts saying legalizing drugs will help our society, based on what appears to me to be very insufficient experimentation to support this claim, I feel that economists generally shouldn't be counted on for social policy, but for economics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I don't see your point. It's not government by the people if less than half the people do it."

    I agree and I don't think people SHOULDN'T vote. But I don't fret when people who are not knowledgeable about politics don't vote.

    "Unless you have the ONLY product. Who are these lost customers going to go to?"

    I can't think of an example of this, can you? (maybe something with a patent, but that will eventually run out)

    "It seems to me most libertarians do exactly that. Which is fine, I do the same thing."

    Yes libertarians do, but economists try not to. Maybe I blur the lines between my libertarian (normative) beliefs and what economics says (positive).

    "I feel that economists generally shouldn't be counted on for social policy, but for economics."

    But how many times to the two overlap?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I completely agree that there's no sense worrying about uneducated voters not voting. But I think we could do a lot to educate people, and a lot to encourage people to be more responsible in their voting habits. I think what I'm trying to say is there is a problem here.

    Examples of people having the only product would be any monopoly ever. Oil, steel, Microsoft Windows (according to the courts) - and now news media. It's not a monopoly though, it's an oligopoly - every news source is controlled by one of 5 companies, all producing the same crappy (but lucrative) product. (Boy do I know you won't like that sentence... :) )

    I think you do blur the lines between libertarian and economist, social policy and economics. But that's cool, that's who you are. You also blur the line between Harrison Brookie and awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...Maybe that's because it's not there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think we pretty much agree Justin. Maybe the only difference is I'm willing to as far as to agree with the quote below from Philosopher Jason Brennan:

    "Irresponsible individual voters ought to abstain rather than vote badly. This thesis may seem anti-democratic. Yet it is really a claim about voter responsibility and how voters can fail to meet this responsibility. On my view, voters are not obligated to vote, but if they do vote, they owe it to others and themselves to be adequately rational, unbiased, just, and informed about their political beliefs. Similarly, most of us think we are not obligated to become parents, but if we are to be parents, we ought to be responsible, good parents. We are not obligated to become surgeons, but if we do become surgeons, we ought to be responsible, good surgeons. We are not obligated to drive, but if we do drive, we ought to be responsible drivers. The same goes for voting."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, we definitely agree that if you're not informed you shouldn't vote.

    But I think we disagree about whether this is a problem. I think people are obligated - they have a duty - to be informed about what their government is doing and vote according to what the think the government should do or not do. And we need better media and better education to help them do this.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So what's your solution to getting better education and media? Government?

    ReplyDelete

You are the reason why I do not write privately. I would love to hear your thoughts, whether you agree or not.