French political philosopher, Alexis de Tocqueville said that in a democracy, we get the government we deserve. Jonathon Turley proves the point with this post, aptly entitled Elected Officials Score Lower on Civics Tests Than Average Citizens (Who Score Lower than Basic Condiments). Condiments are considering organizing a new political party but are squabbling over the name.
American elected officials showed a shocking lack of knowledge about government, history, and basic constitutional principles in a national survey. They scored a failing grade of just 44 percent on a basic test of knowledge of our nation in a quiz by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). Average citizens scored 49 percent. Note: many of these people scored less than a random or blind selection of answers — quite an achievement.
These are the people who get to vote on laws. How does that grab you?
The test, which can be found here, isn’t easy, and some of the questions are ambiguous and a little confusing. But then, these are men and women who hold themselves out as qualified to make decisions about running a rather large nation. Is it too much to expect that they have an adequate working knowledge of civics?
From the AFP story :
“It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI’s civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned,” said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.
“How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don’t understand the American experience?” he added.
One the most common refrains during the election just completed was that Americans wanted elected officials who were “like them,” which I took to mean could understand their thoughts and concerns. Perhaps that desire comes hand in hand with elected officials who have no greater knowledge or understanding of how America works then they do? Is this really what the American people look for in their elected officials.
I took the test and got a 30 out of 33. Less than great, but better than most condiments. Two of my wrong answers were a product of sloppy reading, and one was pure unadulterated error. Take it and see whether you are qualified to become a very important government official. If you get higher than 44%, the answer is apparently no, you’re overqualified and the other folks in Congress will resent you for your intellectual snobbery.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting, albeit sad. The question I decided was utterly braindead — #19 — had the lowest “correct” score. (Yes, I got that one “wrong.”)
Gettysburg Address, Shmettysburg Address. Other than that I’m overqualified like the rest of you geeks. Blogging on my end will now grind to a halt while I go apply for Jeopardy!
Well, I got them all right, so thankfully, I have no future in public office.
Though there were a few that I wasn’t completely sure on, but let’s hope that doesn’t give me a shot at public office.
Yeah, I missed the Gettysburg one too. Some of those other have political overtones, but the one I missed was pure history, so I have no excuse.
I only got 26 right, but as someone who wasn’t raised or educated in the United States, I don’t feel my score is all that bad.
(I’m just relieved that my score at least disqualifies me from public office!)
30 of 33. I got #33 wrong, but I don’t think I should have.
If taxes equal government spending, then government debt would be zero. I suppose the government could still borrow money. But why would the government assume debt if it could meet all of its obligations?
But the question isn’t clear. I’d have thrown that out if I had written it.
There were a couple of other questions that could have been clearer.
Still…. a pretty fair test.
I am surprised that so many people missed the Puritans question. Of course that might be because we don’t teach who the puritans actually were in any of our schools. Seems like I remember learning about people in funny hats with big buckles on their shoes who had thanksgiving dinner with the natives.
I recommend a little Jonathon Edwards for those of you who want to know what the puritans really thought.
Or just his sermon, “Sinners in the hands of an angry God.” for a shorter, but illuminating read.
Nailed it.
Mike, if taxes magically start equalling government spending, there will be no deficit but there will still be considerable debt.
Show off.
This fiscal years revenue – this fiscal years spending = deficit. Sum of deficits over all previous years = debt. So (a) isn’t right.
D, OTOH, is clearly true: If A (income) = B (expenses), then A/C (income per person) = B/C (expenses per person) (given C [i.e., number of people] != 0).
They got you on a trick question.
I see the percentage correct in their ‘findings 5’, but not the response breakdown. I wonder how many chose oppose war, confusing them with e.g., the Quakers?
Hmm… my kid was wondering how many of them could have explained the difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans.
“Besides the class stuff?” I asked.
“That’d do,” she said, with a sniff.
I picked A on 33 too, because I didn’t think it through, but then explained it to myself this way: Some government spending could be for debt service on a day when taxes equal spending.
As Anthony explains it, if the government is not borrowing more today, there is still a debt from prior years’ deficits that have to be paid.
I got 27 wrong, picking D, “property rights and contracts are best enforced by the market system.” The question is, “27) Free markets typically secure more economic prosperity than government’s centralized planning because”
I puzzled over D and A, the correct answer, because A is misleading, “the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends.” The price system clears the market for goods and services by matching supply and demand. It assumes perfect knowledge. It can be a local, regional, national, or global market. “Means and ends” is a mushy way of describing “supply and demand.”
But I have a bias that got in the way. To my cynical way of thinking our governments do not “utilize” any “knowledge.” It is no surprise that our elected officials have a “shocking lack of knowledge” about civics.
Perhaps Turley’s thesis can account for this news item out of Kentucky:
Ky. law requires Homeland Security to credit God
“LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) — A lawmaker says the state’s Homeland Security office should be crediting God with keeping the state safe.
State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister who was instrumental in establishing that requirement in 2006, disapproves of the fact that Homeland Security doesn’t currently mention God in its mission statement or on its Web site.(…)”
Inbreeding could also account for this, but I would never suggest such a thing happens in Kentucky.
Cash
From Turley
Cash
From Turley
Your score makes an excellent point, Shaula. As a high school English teacher, I routinely instruct exchange students (usually from Europe) who have a significantly more comprehensive grasp of U.S. history and government than my own American-born/educated students. Most European nations require exchange students to repeat the year they spent in U.S. schools. Sad but true.
Education: High School. Score 81.82%. This test seems to me to be as much a test of reading comprehension and logic as it is of actual knowledge. I would love to see a breakdown of which elected officials took the test and what their scores were.
Wow…I read this, and figured I’d give it a shot even though I’m not American but Dutch. I just scored an 81.82%. Does this mean I am more qualified to be in the US congress than the average Representative or Senator? 🙂
Not only are you too qualified to be a Rep or Senator, but VP as well. I’m afraid your future is now limited to policy wonk.
I think I’ll pass. I’m actually a journalist. However, I do not practice the “there are two equally valid sides to every political argument” kind of journalism that seem to be running more rampant in your country than any new flu epidemic ever could.
Glad to hear it. I’m not a fan of two sides to every story,or that everyone is entitled to an opinion.