As an afterthought to a post about President Bush’s approval rating, for which the word “low” no longer suffices, Orin Kerr at VC provides the following snippet of statistical data from Rasmussen Reports:
Here’s another interesting poll, this one on opinions toward Congress:
Only half (49%) [of respondents to the poll] believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sure.
It’s irrelevant whether those who believe that individual selected at random could, in fact, do better than the current Congress. What matters is that almost half of the respondents believe it to be true.
This is a frightening example of misapplied logic, and as it happens, is currently at play in the current electoral cycle. No doubt, the significance of this is the public’s dissatisfaction with the pervasive and seemingly intractable problems facing America. But the fallacy comes from the rejection of one end of the spectrum, the status quo, to the assumption that the polar opposite would therefore be an improvement. It shows, yet again, that we are a black and white society, incapable of seeing (or understanding) shades of gray.
The danger of this erroneous assumption is that the public has elevated its vision of the “common man” to mythical status, with ordinary people possessed of something described as “common sense,” one of the most dangerous phrases in the English language. Everyone believes they have it, though no two people have it the same. Yet it is exalted as if it provides the right answer to all questions.
Like everyone else, I chat with folks all day long, and lately we’ve been discussing finances and politics. Half the people I talk to have no idea what’s going on or why. The other half know exactly what’s going on and have a simple plan to fix everything. “It’s common sense,” they tell me. Well, not my common sense, since most of the plans I’ve heard sound remarkably worthless. But the proponents feel pretty confident that they have a solution. You see, they aren’t hampered by knowledge, understanding, facts or consequences.
The problem will not be ordinary citizens storming the capital rotunda to push their fat butts into seats in one chamber or another. The problem is that the latest craze in political gamesmanship is to promote the “Joe Sixpack” persona, to capture the hearts (though not the minds, as they aren’t involved) of voters by appealing to this irrational devotion to commonness.
Like almost all Americans, I too am dissatisfied with the current Congress (as well as the last 12). The game of politics is no longer an effective method of distinguishing viable from failed policies and laws. It’s not that Representatives are inherently stupid, though as Stephen Colbert has proven, some indeed are. It’s that politics has taken a wrong turn a while back, and people who might very well be effective law makers under certain circumstances are on the road to perdition.
But that doesn’t mean the solution isn’t to elect the “common man” to Congress. Or the “common woman” to the Vice Presidency. But it’s far easier for politicians to feed the public’s misperception than correct it, even though it’s fairly clear that this path is taking us farther and farther away from the government that Thomas Jefferson had in mind : “One cannot underestimate the wisdom of the people.“
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I live in a condominium, and I’ve attended a lot of the meetings. We’re all a pretty common bunch, so I’ve seen government by Joe Sixpack, and it ain’t pretty. Democracy rarely is.
And the reality is, we rarely elect people to Congress because they’re the brightest or best qualified. In general, we elect people who can distill our vague fears and desires into a soundbite.
Picking them at random, a la jury duty, isn’t the craziest idea I’ve ever heard and would eliminate a lot of the problems created by having a permanent political class.
Ah yes, the ignorati. The great unwashed of American politics. Dim-witted, proudly ignorant, suspicious of anyone they view as being dismissive or disdainful of their dim selves even if said person has never said or done anything to show such disdain (simply appearing intelligent and articulate is enough to arouse their suspicion), eager to accept any politician who, in their view, is just as stupid as they are. Commonly associated with the term “I want a President that I can have a beer with.”
That’s certainly worked out well, hmm?
Maybe it wouldn’t be so crazy if instead of replacing Congress with random legislators, we add them as another check and balance.
I once had the idea of amending the constitution to create a third house of Congress that is sort of an Anticongress. They would be chosen at by lottery from the people at large to serve the same period as regular Congresscritters. Their only powers would be to reduce punishments and fines, strike criminal laws, revoke regulatory powers, and remove trade restrictions. They also get a line-item veto.
In the interest of balance, we’d probably want the regular congress to be able override them with a supermajority.
I’d like to see a venn diagram of the ignorati and the slackoisie…
What I don’t understand is, do these people choose their cardiac surgeons the same way?
“Gee, that guy with all the degrees must be some kind of an elitist. I guess I’ll just get my brother-in-law to crack my sternum instead because he’s a great guy to have a beer with.”
How do they survive? How do they navigate the complex world around them?