Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Voters Choose… but on the Basis of What?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
Just how stupid are we? Pretty stupid, it would seem, when we come across headlines like this: "Homer Simpson, Yes -- 1st Amendment 'Doh,' Survey Finds" (Associated Press 3/1/06).
"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.
"The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms."
But what does it mean exactly to say that American voters are stupid? About this there is unfortunately no consensus. Like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who confessed not knowing how to define pornography, we are apt simply to throw up our hands in frustration and say: We know it when we see it. But unless we attempt a definition of some sort, we risk incoherence, dooming our investigation of stupidity from the outset. Stupidity cannot mean, as Humpty Dumpty would have it, whatever we say it means.
Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
American Ignorance
Taking up the first of our definitions of stupidity, how ignorant are we? Ask the political scientists and you will be told that there is damning, hard evidence pointing incontrovertibly to the conclusion that millions are embarrassingly ill-informed and that they do not care that they are. There is enough evidence that one could almost conclude -- though admittedly this is a stretch -- that we are living in an Age of Ignorance.
Surprised? My guess is most people would be. The general impression seems to be that we are living in an age in which people are particularly knowledgeable. Many students tell me that they are the most well-informed generation in history.
Why are we so deluded? The error can be traced to our mistaking unprecedented access to information with the actual consumption of it. Our access is indeed phenomenal. George Washington had to wait two weeks to discover that he had been elected president of the United States. That's how long it took for the news to travel from New York, where the Electoral College votes were counted, to reach him at home in Mount Vernon, Virginia. Americans living in the interior regions had to wait even longer, some up to two months. Now we can watch developments as they occur halfway around the world in real time. It is little wonder then that students boast of their knowledge. Unlike their parents, who were forced to rely mainly on newspapers and the network news shows to find out what was happening in the world, they can flip on CNN and Fox or consult the Internet.
But in fact only a small percentage of people take advantage of the great new resources at hand. In 2005, the Pew Research Center surveyed the news habits of some 3,000 Americans age 18 and older. The researchers found that 59% on a regular basis get at least some news from local TV, 47% from national TV news shows, and just 23% from the Internet.
Anecdotal evidence suggested for years that Americans were not particularly well-informed. As foreign visitors long ago observed, Americans are vastly inferior in their knowledge of world geography compared with Europeans. (The old joke is that "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.") But it was never clear until the postwar period how ignorant Americans are. For it was only then that social scientists began measuring in a systematic manner what Americans actually know. The results were devastating.
The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.
Contrary to expectations, by many measures the surveys showed the level of ignorance remaining constant over time. In the 1990s, political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter concluded that there was statistically little difference between the knowledge of the parents of the Silent Generation of the 1950s, the parents of the Baby Boomers of the 1960s, and American parents today. (By some measures, Americans are dumber today than their parents of a generation ago.)
Some of the numbers are hard to fathom in a country in which for at least a century all children have been required by law to attend grade school or be home-schooled. Even if people do not closely follow the news, one would expect them to be able to answer basic civics questions, but only a small minority can.
In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.
Polls over the past three decades measuring Americans' knowledge of history show similarly dismal results. What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest. Who said the "world must be made safe for democracy"? Just 14% know it was Woodrow Wilson. Which country dropped the nuclear bomb? Only 49% know it was their own country. Who was America's greatest president? According to a Gallup poll in 2005, a majority answer that it was a president from the last half century: 20% said Reagan, 15% Bill Clinton, 12% John Kennedy, 5% George W. Bush. Only 14% picked Lincoln and only 5%, Washington.
And the worst president? For years Americans would include in the list Herbert Hoover. But no more. Most today do not know who Herbert Hoover was, according to the University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey in 2004. Just 43% could correctly identify him.
The only history questions a majority of Americans can answer correctly are the most basic ones. What happened at Pearl Harbor? A great majority know: 84%. What was the Holocaust? Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?) But it comes as something of a shock that, in 1983, just 81% knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was and that, in 1985, only 81% could identify Martin Luther King, Jr.
What Voters Don't Know
Who these poor souls were who didn't know who Martin Luther King was we cannot be sure. Research suggests that they were probably impoverished (the poor tend to know less on the whole about politics and history than others) or simply unschooled, categories which usually overlap. But even Americans in the middle class who attend college exhibit profound ignorance. A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)
The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?
Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.
If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.
On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other (which will come as a surprise to many history teachers). Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.
In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security.
Young and Ignorant -- and Voting
At least, you may think to yourself, we are not getting any dumber. But by some measures we are. Young people by many measures know less today than young people forty years ago. And their news habits are worse. Newspaper reading went out in the sixties along with the Hula Hoop. Just 20% of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 read a daily paper. And that isn't saying much. There's no way of knowing what part of the paper they're reading. It is likelier to encompass the comics and a quick glance at the front page than dense stories about Somalia or the budget.
They aren't watching the cable news shows either. The average age of CNN's audience is sixty. And they surely are not watching the network news shows, which attract mainly the Depends generation. Nor are they using the Internet in large numbers to surf for news. Only 11% say that they regularly click on news web pages. (Yes, many young people watch Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. A survey in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 54% of the viewers of The Daily Show score in the "high knowledge" news category -- about the same as the viewers of the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News.)
Compared with Americans generally -- and this isn't saying much, given their low level of interest in the news -- young people are the least informed of any age cohort save possibly for those confined to nursing homes. In fact, the young are so indifferent to newspapers that they single-handedly are responsible for the dismally low newspaper readership rates that are bandied about.
In earlier generations -- in the 1950s, for example -- young people read newspapers and digested the news at rates similar to those of the general population. Nothing indicates that the current generation of young people will suddenly begin following the news when they turn 35 or 40. Indeed, half a century of studies suggest that most people who do not pick up the news habit in their twenties probably never will.
Young people today find the news irrelevant. Bored by politics, students shun the rituals of civic life, voting in lower numbers than other Americans (though a small up-tick in civic participation showed up in recent surveys). U.S. Census data indicate that voters aged 18 to 24 turn out in low numbers. In 1972, when 18 year olds got the vote, 52% cast a ballot. In subsequent years, far fewer voted: in 1988, 40%; in 1992, 50%; in 1996, 35%; in 2000, 36%. In 2004, despite the most intense get-out-the-vote effort ever focused on young people, just 47% took the time to cast a ballot.
Since young people on the whole scarcely follow politics, one may want to consider whether we even want them to vote. Asked in 2000 to identify the presidential candidate who was the chief sponsor of Campaign Finance Reform -- Sen. John McCain -- just 4% of people between the ages of 18 and 24 could do so. As the primary season began in February, fewer than half in the same age group knew that George W. Bush was even a candidate. Only 12% knew that McCain was also a candidate even though he was said to be especially appealing to young people.
One news subject in recent history, 9/11, did attract the interest of the young. A poll by Pew at the end of 2001 found that 61% of adult Americans under age 30 said that they were following the story closely. But few found any other subjects in the news that year compelling. Anthrax attacks? Just 32% indicated it was important enough to follow. The economy? Again, just 32%. The capture of Kabul? Just 20%.
It would appear that young people today are doing very little reading of any kind. In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts, consulting a vast array of surveys, including the United States Census, found that just 43% of young people ages 18 to 24 read literature. In 1982, the number was 60%. A majority do not read either newspapers, fiction, poetry, or drama. Save for the possibility that they are reading the Bible or works of non-fiction, for which solid statistics are unavailable, it would appear that this generation is less well read than any other since statistics began to be kept.
The studies demonstrating that young people know less today than young people a generation ago do not get much publicity. What one hears about are the pioneer steps the young are taking politically. Headlines from the 2004 presidential election featured numerous stories about young people who were following the campaign on blogs, then a new phenomenon. Other stories focused on the help young Deaniacs gave Howard Dean by arranging to raise funds through innovative Internet appeals. Still other stories reported that the Deaniacs were networking all over the country through the Internet website meetup.com. One did not hear that we have raised another Silent Generation. But have we not? The statistics about young people today are fairly clear: As a group they do not vote in large numbers, most do not read newspapers, and most do not follow the news. (Barack Obama has recently inspired greater participation, but at this stage it is too early to tell if the effect will be lasting.)
The Issues? Who knows?
Millions every year are now spent on the effort to answer the question: What do the voters want? The honest answer would be that often they themselves do not really know because they do not know enough to say. Few, however, admit this.
In the election of 2004, one of the hot issues was gay marriage. But gauging public opinion on the subject was difficult. Asked in one national poll whether they supported a constitutional amendment allowing only marriages between a man and a woman, a majority said yes. But three questions later a majority also agreed that "defining marriage was not an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution." The New York Times wryly summed up the results: Americans clearly favor amending the Constitution but not changing it.
Does it matter if people are ignorant? There are many subjects about which the ordinary voter need know nothing. The conscientious citizen has no obligation to plow through the federal budget, for example. One suspects there are not many politicians themselves who have bothered to do so. Nor do voters have an obligation to read the laws passed in their name. We do expect members of Congress to read the bills they are asked to vote on, but we know from experience that often they do not, having failed either to take the time to do so or having been denied the opportunity to do so by their leaders, who for one reason or another often rush bills through.
Reading the text of laws in any case is often unhelpful. The chairpersons in charge of drafting them often include provisions only a detective could untangle. The tax code is rife with clauses like this: The Congress hereby appropriates X dollars for the purchase of 500 widgets that measure 3 inches by 4 inches by 2 inches from any company incorporated on October 20, 1965 in Any City USA situated in block 10 of district 3.
Of course, only one company fits the description. Upon investigation it turns out to be owned by the chairperson's biggest contributor. That is more than any citizens acting on their own could possibly divine. It is not essential that the voter know every which way in which the tax code is manipulated to benefit special interests. All that is required is that the voter know that rigging of the tax code in favor of certain interests is probably common. The media are perfectly capable of communicating this message. Voters are perfectly capable of absorbing it. Armed with this knowledge, the voter knows to be wary of claims that the tax code treats one and all alike with fairness.
There are however innumerable subjects about which a general knowledge is insufficient. In these cases ignorance of the details is more than a minor problem. An appalling ignorance of Social Security, to take one example, has left Americans unable to see how their money has been spent, whether the system is viable, and what measures are needed to shore it up.
How many know that the system is running a surplus? And that this surplus -- some $150 billion a year -- is actually quite substantial, even by Washington standards? And how many know that the system has been in surplus since 1983?
Few, of course. Ignorance of the facts has led to a fundamentally dishonest debate about Social Security.
During all the years the surpluses were building, the Democrats in Congress pretended the money was theirs to be spent, as if it were the same as all the other tax dollars collected by the government. And spend it they did, whenever they had the chance, with no hint that they were perhaps disbursing funds that actually should be held in reserve for later use. (Social Security taxes had been expressly raised in 1983 in order to build up the system's funds when bankruptcy had loomed.) Not until the rest of the budget was in surplus (in 1999) did it suddenly occur to them that the money should be saved. And it appears that the only reason they felt compelled at this point to acknowledge that the money was needed for Social Security was because they wanted to blunt the Republicans' call for tax cuts. The Social Security surplus could not both be used to pay for the large tax cuts Republicans wanted and for the future retirement benefits of aging Boomers.
The Republicans have been equally unctuous. While they have claimed that they are terribly worried about Social Security, they have been busy irresponsibly spending the system's surplus on tax cuts, one cut after another. First Reagan used the surplus to hide the impact of his tax cuts and then George W. Bush used it to hide the impact of his cuts. Neither ever acknowledged that it was only the surplus in Social Security's accounts that made it even plausible for them to cut taxes.
Take those Bush tax cuts. Bush claimed the cuts were made possible by several years of past surpluses and the prospect of even more years of surpluses. But subtracting from the federal budget the overflow funds generated by Social Security, the government ran a surplus in just two years during the period the national debt was declining, 1999 and 2000.
In the other years when the government ran a surplus, 1998 and 2001, it was because of Social Security and only because of Social Security. That is, the putative surpluses of 1998 and 2001, which President Bush cited in defense of his tax cuts, were in reality pure fiction. Without Social Security the government would have been in debt those two years. And yet in 2001 President Bush told the country tax cuts were not only needed, they were affordable because of our splendid surplus.
Today, conservatives argue that the Social Security Trust Fund is a fiction. They are correct. The money was spent. They helped spend it.
To this debate about Social Security -- which, once one understands what has been happening, is actually quite absorbing -- the public has largely been an indifferent spectator. A surprising 2001 Pew study found that just 19% of Americans understand that the United States ever ran a surplus at all, however defined, in the 1990s or 2000`s. And only 50% of Americans, according to an Annenberg study in 2004, understand that President Bush favors privatizing Social Security. Polls indicate that people are scared that the system is going bust, no doubt thanks in part to Bush's gloom-and-doom prognostications. But they haven't the faintest idea what going bust means. And in fact, the system can be kept going without fundamental change simply by raising the cap on taxed income and pushing back the retirement age a few years.
How much ignorance can a country stand? There have to be terrible consequences when it reaches a certain level. But what level? And with what consequences, exactly? The answers to these questions are unknowable. But can we doubt that if we persist on the path we are on that we shall, one day, perhaps not too far into the distant future, find out the answers?
Rick Shenkman, Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter, New York Times bestselling author, and associate professor of history at George Mason University, is the founder and editor of History News Network, a website that features articles by historians on current events. This essay is adapted from chapter two of his new book, Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter (Basic Books, 2008). His observations about the 2008 election can be followed on his blog, "How Stupid?" His recent appearance on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" can be viewed by clicking here.
Excerpted from Just How Stupid Are We?, by Rick Shenkman, by arrangement with Basic Books.
Copyright 2008 Rick Shenkman
57 Comments so far
Show AllWhat we know about Senator Obama is only what he allows on his campaigm commercials.
And this American History you say we know nothing about? That history never tells the real story.It only makes us feel like we have always been right in everything we have done.
We do not hear much on who really was allowed to vote for George Washington.Or that Presiident Lincoln really was a pawn of the war machinery of the north.or President Harding actually had more then one Monica before President Clinton was even born. Or daddy Bush could not understand how to shop for himself .
And all we know or we think we know about Senator Obama is even less.
Raised in kansas? Funny how he fled to Illiiois instead of going home like Bill Clinton did.
And Obama's Mama? We new Bill Clinton's mama the good and the bad.
or those years of Obama in Hawaii. What do we know? Can he even swim or surf?Does he like pineapple?.
The writer talks about our ignorance of history. We are about to make new american history but does the writer give us any real information?
By the way The Simpsons actually deal with many of America's problems with humor.
The fact that Homer controls a nuclear power plant and sleeps has been made a reality not far away from where I live.
or the foreign storekeeper on The Simpsons.
There are three around me just miles away.
The religious neighbor? Come on we all got neighbors like him which we ignore.
and you can cheer up because network tv has already started hitting us with more quiz shows and supposily reality tv. Perhaps we will all learn from them.
Let me explain something to Annebrit (#14):
Under the German ("Prussian") school system, children were tested at age 10 and then sorted into three levels of schooling. (Those who were assigned to the less demanding levels got a second chance at age 12.) Their subsequent education reached a level that over here is reached only halfway through university, and culminated with a massive exam (the Abitur) at age 18. Only the academically most gifted went on to university; many went on to technical colleges. This was not a problem because the technical and practical professions were highly respected. (This is in contrast to England, in which the ruling class were into the classics, the "trades" were looked down upon, and industry started going downhill as soon as it became too complex to be moved forward by gifted amateurs.) Please tell me when America adopted this system of education.
By the way, the German school system did not make the National Socialist government possible. That was done by the Treaty of Versailles, your President Woodrow "Fourteen Points" Wilson's gift to the world.
What the German school system (among other institutions) did enable is that the Germans went from being crushed flat in 1918 to almost winning a war aganst almost every other industrial power. America's trajectory since 1945 has been in the opposite direction.
Also, the founding of the Federal Reserve (the event of 1913 which I think Annebrit is talking about) did not make America subject to the Bank of England--although it is true that one of the major reasons America intervened in World War I was to rescue the enormous amount of money that had been lent to Britain. The subsequent trend has been to make England an appendage of America, not the other way around.
In short, Annebrit's posting is a good illustration of MiMiCcS's point (#28) that what is taught as history is actually a mythology selected for the advantage of the rulers (although I do not agree with his more extreme opinions).
"with no hint that they were perhaps disbursing funds that actually should be held in reserve for later use"
A Nation *cannot* keep funds in reserve. Al least not denominated in its own currency. What's it supposed to do? Put all the franklins in a vault somewhere? Deposit it with the reserve bank, in a nice little nest egg? The very idea that a nation, a society, can save money for future use is preposterous. Money is a measure of how much the rest of society owes you - how big a share of society's current output you personally are entitled to.
Widhalm19 July 3rd, 2008 1:38 pm
That was a great post.
"It seems many liberals and progressives, so-called, have become intolerant, priggish, mean-spirited, arrogant and elitist."
I admit that what you say is somewhat true, but I believe that its turning back to true liberalism and some of that is fading away.
There is a lot of very civil and useful discourse at CD and in the main except for a few that hate America and Americans, and they stand out like a sore thumb, most here are trying hard to find our way.
I'd sure go for the suggestions in your last paragraph.
Have a happy and safe Forth of July, you and all your family.
Commondreamers,
Thirty years ago, I used to think liberals were a bit naive in their belief that humankind is basically good and decent. Likewise, I thought the conservative outlook that humankind is mostly greedy and dishonest was unfair, as well.
I say, people, nearly all people, are capable of damn near anything.
So, what makes the difference in lives lived?
Likely, it's our attitude about the hand we're dealt.
Anyway, Judging by this article (and many others on this website) and the responses to it, things are different now. It seems many liberals and progressives, so-called, have become intolerant, priggish, mean-spirited, arrogant and elitist.
Hmm ....
Something to consider, perhaps this nation's current state of affairs are just the on-going result of a large-scale, representative democracy trying to govern a mass, consumer-driven society? Maybe, there is no sinister conspiracy against "the people" but simply a series of outcomes to our ways of living? I think the contributor "Gorsegrower" is trying to illuminate this point.
Please, consider this: for a democratic government to be responsible it must also be accountable to it's citizens. And, to be accountable, a democracy works well if it's small-in-scale, egalitarian and open to the public. Better still is a direct democracy where the majority of people actually get what they want. And, sometimes what the majority wants turns out not-so-good, yet, that's how we learn to make better decisions next time.
Commondreamers, please, stop all the hand-wringing and name-calling, get involved in local politics, plant a garden, learn to hunt and fish, help us protect the wild places, walk instead of drive, ride a bike instead of the bus, have your neighbor over for supper, move out of the city, join the fire-department, celebrate the 4th of July and make this world a little better place to live in.
Have a GREAT day!
Joni Rose July 2nd, 2008 7:10 pm
Hooray for your daughter! I am appalled that this type of propaganda is permitted as "education"
A great posting in any case. Tell her I admire her please.
QRDeNameland July 2nd, 2008 7:34 pm
Got that right!
framante July 2nd, 2008 8:26 pm
Unless we get things straightened out, I'm afraid you are right.
MikeBinSC July 3rd, 2008 1:20 am
Just remember, waving our flag, being patriotic, or any of that other stuff often denigrated by some, doesn't mean for one moment that you support this bunch of pond scum in charge now. Or that you don't know about all our problems and want to fix them. Hollow Point is happy in Canada and I'm delighted for him, but I want to stay here and if we don't start fixing some of this stuff soon...Oops!
Would you consider that people like Jed Babbin of Human Events saying the same thing about you would be unfair? I'm trying to say that just because the conservatives disagree with us, it doesn't mean they are ignorant or even in some instances wrong. That said, we need to immediately exclude Fox news and evry living Neocon from my statement above.
MikeBinSC July 3rd, 2008 1:43 am
Thanks for the comment about Rushbo. And thank DD for the comment on his contract too. Good point. It does reinforce muy point though... America is the greatest country in the world, any idiot can make a half a billion dollars.
As usual, the truth wears a coat of many colors. So many posters have verified the general [and specific] observations in the article. For another perspective consider for a moment the instances of towering - or above average - intelligence that have made American achievements the envy of many nations: engineering at MIT; communications in Silicon Valley; medicine at Johns Hopkins; or how about post-war culture: the music of Cole Porter, Gershwin, B. Goodman, Sinatra....; cinematic masterpieces? Take your pick. Automotive innovations? Aerospace technology? Any fool with a modicum of intelligence could go on & on.. but you get the point, yes? And for chrissake, keep the politicizing out of the discussion. For the most part, it's an individual's personal choice to CHOOSE stupidity over curiosity - not the nefarious workings of an evil gov't or corporation. Does it never occur that both these institutions want to choose the brightest & best for their daily ops?
About 10 years ago, I was reading a book by Aldous Huxley. In that book, "The Perennial Philosophy" he quoted many philosophers. After reading the book, I realized that I was tired of seeing names such as Locke, Humes, James, Kant, Emerson, Aurelious, Mills, Socrates, Plato, and on and on, qouted. So I decided to begin reading the books these quotes were taken from.
Since then, I haven't read more than perhaps a dozen books of fiction. I became addicted to the writings of these truly great thinkers. And each book led me to another book. Many of the books I have had to read up to three times to grasp the content.
Looking back on this, I realize that all of these people had the means and liesure time that permitted them to write down their thoughts. Even Einstien had the good fortune of having a job that gave him the time to think and work out his theories. Thomas Paine, while not wealthy, was taken under the wing of a man who recognized his intelligence and because of this, Paine was able to give us so much through his writings.
What I am getting at is this: if you have the wealth, you have the possibility to grow and strenghten your various gifts you were born with. This is not 100% true, but very close to it.
All of these writers and thinkers had nothing really new to say to me. What they did have was what I don't: the ability to find the exact words to describe and clarify their thoughts. They also all had a great understanding of history and knew Latin and Greek for the most part.
Switch to today. As Dewey, the philosopher who gave so much toward how we should educate the young, said that it is the government that is ultimately responsible for the quality of education of its citizens.
As we all know, education - especially at the university level - has first of all become far too expensive for the majority of high school grads. And the government programs that used to help the poorer to afford a higher education have been starved of funds or simply wiped out.
Also, politics has entered and damaged the potential of many students. Folks such as Alan Dershowitz have done a great disservice to those professors trying to educate their students. If Socrates were alive today, he would be condemend by those of the ilk of Dershowitz - just as he was in his day. And it was all for political reasons.
The television has also done a huge disservice to the education of the populace. The History channel constantly focuses on the history of war machines, guns, ways of killing, fighter jets and submarines. Why not focus on so many other events in history? They can be done in a way that keeps the viewer's attention and stimulates their curiosity. But no. It is still the same old "if it bleeds it leads" type of thought.
I don't think we can lay the blame on the newer generations. The blame ultimately rests on our government. I think we would all agree that an uninformed citizenry is preferable to the rulers of a nation. How else could they sell us the war against Iraq, if not for an uninformed people? It's much easier to rule a country that can be lead around like a flock of sheep. Put a stop to critical thinking. Put a stop to independent news media. Switch the focus to Paris Hilton or some other unimportant issue. Fan the flames of prejudice and bigotry. Keep the people ignorant.
I live in a country now where I could also say the people are ignorant of many things, but it isn't because the people are incapable of higher reasoning, it's because the rulers don't want them to know anything about certain issues. However, they are churning out young people that put the USA to shame in the fields of science and engineering.
Why are we ignorant? Because the government wants us to be.
Thanks for "crediting" me with the idea that Nader and McKinney can't serve any real purpose other than helping Republicans gain or stay in power. I'm not the only one, of course, and hadn't mentioned it above, so I guess we could just as easily "credit" you for bringing this up.
I'm glad we agree, either way.
It's not that these extra candidates are bad people with bad ideas. They are actually good people with even better ideas, but fringe candidacies are not the right forum for really pushing those messages. It not only risks whole election outcomes, but in some ways demeans their own messages when they end up getting only small percentages of voters. They are seen as losers, and then their ideas are seen as losers too---when the ideas are anything but.
Also, thanks for raising issue of Limbaugh's new contract. We liberals should be focusing on WHO is paying that kind of money for Rush's ruminations. What networks, what station ownership(s) and what classes of advertisers.
singers, artists, and poets always hit the nail on the head...the media (how i hate that word!), our educational system, and, unfortunately, parents, rarely (if ever) do.
"when i think back on all the crap i learned in high school, it's a wonder i can think at all..." (paul simon)
"i was so much older then, i'm younger than that now..." (robert zimmerman)
as always, "i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder..."
Considering we have only a 50% literacy rate in this country, our level of ignorance shouldn't be very shocking.
As frank1569 July 2nd, 2008 8:26 pm said,
"Mission f**king accomplished."
Brian Brademayer - given the publicity about Creationism and Scientology, and their increasing acceptance (even here in the UK, some schools are teaching creationism side by side with evolution!!), it is surprising that the role of religious superstition has not been mentioned. On the question of dumbing down, I think the media has done much to break down culture, and the upsurge in so called "celebrity reality" shows, has added to the feeling that intelligence, morals and reasonable behaviour are all things to be ridiculed, rather than praised.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, many exams are based on multiple choice questioning, rather than use methods which may more accurately judge a pupil's skills, such as essay writing.
I am surprised at the results for history, because I have assumed (maybe incorrectly), that even well educated youngsters do not have a solid grasp of World history and politics in the last hundred years. They may be able to tell you about the Romans or the American civil war, but are facts being with held, about the first and second World wars, Vietnam and the geo political problems in the last 40 years in South America?
Can we trust education authorities to teach facts, rather than feed propaganda? Is it easier for the government and media to feed us rubbish, and to encourage a state of torpor, where we simply question nothing, and apathy and inertia takes over?
Lots of talk is all I have seen since 911. No real action, so you get what you are delt live with it.
The foolish student hears of the Tao and laughs aloud.
If there were no laughter, the Tao would not be what it is.
Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling.
Not collecting treasures prevents stealing.
Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the heart.
The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies, by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones.
If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere. If nothing is done, then all will be well.
There is no greater sin than desire.
No greater curse than discontent.
No greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself.
Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.
The world is ruled by letting things take their course.
It cannot be ruled by interfering.
The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.
Therefore the sage says:
I take no action and people are reformed.
I enjoy peace and people become honest.
I do nothing and people become rich.
I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.
Rulers who try to use cleverness
Cheat the country.
Those who rule without cleverness
Are a blessing to the land.
Why is the sea king of a hundred streams?
Because it lies below them.
Therefore it is the king of a hundred streams.
If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility. If he would lead them, he must follow behind.
And the dumbing-down of America must yield great returns, as the greatest purveyor of lies and propaganda, Rush Limbaugh, just got a new contract to keep doing what he does for eight more years for $400 Million, nearly HALF A BILLION DOLLARS!!! WTF!!!
Willful ignorance afflicts a great many Americans today. These people want to believe the corporate-government-media lies, as it allows them to wave their flags and feel good about supporting a Neo-Fascist government that is doing bad things in their name. In short, it is a defense mechanism for many who don't want, and can't handle the truth.
Several studies have shown that people who rely on Fox for their news, and many do, are the most uninformed and misinformed among us, and I have many inlaws in this category. They love being treated like mushrooms - Kept in the dark and fed train-loads of shit.
Any thinking person knows that Fox News is merely a stenographer and message amplifier for the right-wing Neo-Fascists. The problem is, their viewers are the inoculated, indoctrinated, "Sieg Heil" followers, and are unlikely to change their views by any means short of an addict intervention program.
Another function of Fox, other than maintaining Bush's base of about 20%, is to make the other corporate media appear to lean left, or have a bias toward the left, as compared to Fox. Since Fox lays hard(100%) on its right side, and the other corporate media leans (50%) to the right, and so, from many other corporate media viewers perspective it appears that the others lean left.
Fox=(__) Other corporate media=(/) Together=(/__)
Some viewers see=(\ /) Get It?
Now, if we had a news media outlet that actually leaned to the left as far as Fox leans to the right, the people would be able to put all of them in the proper perspective.
Like this __\ | /__
Unfortunately, lefties with the means to do this like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and others, must not think it is too important or it would have already been done. Why do you think that is?
So, all that remains for us is hundreds of liberal/progressive islands, Like CD, quarantined on the Internet, not just from the mainstream, but from each other, kind of like CO2 sequestered deep underground in capped oil wells.
If we ever want our views and thoughts to make a difference in the World and in Democracy here in America, we must do a much better job of organizing and getting our message out. Until then, Daniel David is right, a Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader candidacy performs no other function than that of "Equalizer" for the Republicans, helping them remain viable.
Hmmmmmm..... Not a word in the article (or the comments) on the stunting role of religious superstition, which in these United States is at levels not seen since the Dark Ages.
My new wife has had 4 operations 2 for cancer and again not one red cent in cost and still gets the same 100% coverage no matter what operations she has had. America is so fucked you wouldn't believe it.
I moved to Canada for that very reason. The average american is so far out of the loop they have no idea of what or who is doing what.
READ THE FOLLOWING PLS.
Plus the health care is amazing. Had to go to the hospital by ambulance, then a bank of tests like on the TV show House, under 24 hours later an MIR with more tests and the cost NOT ONE CENT. So keep your Mccain and Obama the the rest of the controlled people you call democracy. When you get to look at America from the outside is it ever screwed up.
Mr. Shenken should have kept his article short by asking us to read Morris Berman's thoughtful book, "The Twilight of American Culture. " co 2000
A Nation at Risk was written in 1983 and little came of it. Now, 25 years later, we are reaping the consequences of inaction. History teaches that preeminent nations come and go. United States hubris notwithstanding, our days at the top of the heap are surely numbered.
Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching, 6th century BC, encouraged rulers to keep their people in "ignorance", or "simple-minded".
Mission f**king accomplished.
"In fact, the young are so indifferent to newspapers that they single-handedly are responsible for the dismally low newspaper readership rates that are bandied about."
This sentence reveals the cluelessness of this author. While I don't disagree with the premise that Americans in general are ignorant and irresponsible, this article is full of unsubstantiated platitudes. Young people are not "single-handedly responsible" for the state of mainstream media. The media is itself responsible for that. Young people are actually showing some intelligence for not wanting to fill their heads with the lies and propaganda from the MSM.
And, of course, the MSM is the main culprit in the dumbing down of America in general.
An educated and politically active populace is necessary for democracy to remain free. That's why the oligarchs do everything in their power to discourage such a populace.
Earthian: No, it's not because we don't have proportional representation, it's because we have representation. Get out of the rut, man; Congress is obsolete, so abolish it.
It's the current structure that allows wealth to influence political outcomes; that's what needs to be changed, because that's what's fundamental to all the rest of it. If we had real democracy wealth would be powerless; rich and poor get one vote each, and that's that.
The article is weak in an important way. It fails to mention the motive of ignorance. The US system of government is a money-dominated, two-party system. That's because we have winner-take-all, district-based elections for the Senate and the House. And we have an electoral college, not instant runoff (or regular runoff) voting for President. And unlike any other modern, establish democracies, we allow money to control the discourse during elections. And we have a judiciary controlled by the Senate, one of the most unrepresentative bodies among established democracies. And we lack the most basic democratic right of all: the American people cannot vote, via a referendum, to decide any question, not even who becomes president. States have had over 200 state constitutional conventions, whereas at the national level, we have had only two: one to establish the first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the second 1787 convention to establish the current Constitution. People don't know about the government, in part, because we don't pay teachers well or otherwise invest in education. But also, the self-interest motive is lacking, unlike in many other countries. The government is structured to prevent The People from controlling it. We lack even an amendment to impeach the President and Vice-President via a recall election, like California did a few years ago.
What are solutions to make our government structured so public policy matches public opinion, and to make it actually representative of and controlled by The People? Easy. Proportional representation in the legislature. Germany has this. New Zealand adopted it in the 1990s, from a two-party system. Sweden has it, as does Norway, Ireland, Scotland and many other nations. Directly voting for president would help. It could be an instant runoff, or an actual runoff (like France has) to be better. The judicial branch could be chosen by bodies other than the Senate. And if the Senate was representative, California would have 160 senators to Wyoming's two. That would make it more reflective of The People. All of these changes and more would align the structure of the government with the Constitution's own Preamble. It says "We the People" not "We the States."
I cannot in a short space recommend all the changes to improve the Constitution to make the US government more reflective of and a microcosm of its citizens, but the above is a start. For more, read the books by Steven Hill, Robert Dahl, Larry Sabato, Sanford Levinson, and Dan Lazare. They tell a good part of the whole story of the problems and the progressive remedies.
If people could actually make a difference, more would know about it, for they would possess the motive of self-interest.
It is the policy of progressive parties and candidates to make these changes. Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, the Green Party, the state progressive caucuses in the state Democratic Parties advocate such progressive electoral reforms. To make these changes requires progressives to get active on progressive electoral reforms. To do that requires joining progressive parties and/or progressive caucuses in the (still largely corporate Democratic Party) at the state level. More specifically you can do this: join the Green Party. And establish and/or join a progressive caucus in your state Democratic Party. I and others did this in my own state of Kansas. So can you in your state.
Search for "progressive" "caucus" "(your state)" and you can find out if you have one. You can establish one if you don't have one yet. Search for "Green Party" "(your state)" to find out if you have one. You can join the national Green Party if you don't have a local one yet.
My daughter, when in 7th grade took a "zero" for a homework assignment because she refused to regurgitate the propaganda they fed her that, "We had to invade Iraq to remove a flawed government." Yes -- an actual quote from a study sheet. So perhaps there is hope for this generation. (ON the other hand, my 13 year old stepdaughter was amazed to discover recently that Hawaii wasn't a foreign country and that Virginia and West Virginia were two different states...Yikes!)
Excellent post. "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security. - is now officially my motto.
"but please don't think ill of me for snapping back a bit every now and then at the perpetual funmakers of ole DD."
Gotcha. Happens to us all (especially me lately), but ladybug didn't mean it the way you took it I think.
MiMiCcS July 2nd, 2008 6:39 pm
I loved history, still do.
"I believe many young people today know they are being taught BS, and the spin on news in the MSM and even articles on the internet are filled with lies of omission or distortion."
But you are exactly right. The history they are being taught now bears little resemblence to real history. Compare a history book from 1980 to one today and you'd think you had two different books.
Of course, the myths fed to the people in their socialized schools and in the MSM contribute nothing to the peoples ignorance. An interesting oversight.
Mark Twain quote. "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed"
Some else said "History is the present. Thats why every generation rewrites it. But what most people think of as history is the end product, myth."
Unless you a prepared to doubt everything you read when it comes to current events and history, then you might as well spend your time surfing porn, playing games, etc. Better to be uninformed and know that you are, than misinformed and suffer from the illusion of knowledge, which is the greatest obstacle to knowledge.
As a student, I hated history because it made absolutely no sense, just one accident, mistake, act of stupidity, after another with battles fought between the good guys and bad guys. I know now that our history is a myth. I believe many young people today know they are being taught BS, and the spin on news in the MSM and even articles on the internet are filled with lies of omission or distortion. So they tune out. Unfortunately, when the vast majority believe in the myths, the myth becomes the truth, or as Carlin calls it; the consensus reality. The emperor has no clothes, but what are you going to do, the consensus says they are fine clothes.
The real history, should you remove the myths that conceal it, is downright scary as it exposes the evil that rules us while pretending to be good. To these men, liberty means the right for them to do anything they wish, so long as the end justifies the means. The end is One World Totalitarian Government and population reduction to no more than 600 million people. For most of the last 150 years a small but powerful group have conspired to reach this end, killing hundreds of millions in the process. The mission is almost accomplished. The end of history is near.
I don't see Barack and Michelle explaining anything. They are self-serving power-hungry manipulators, i.e., typical politician with ambitious wife. There will be no shake-up, only disappointment of the Obama supporters when their messiah fails to deliver. He's already failing, the supporters are restless.
locust and Thomas,
Please bear in mind that I almost never respond directly in a negative way to anyone's post EXCEPT after being attacked by name. I've got two posts above from the same person accusing me of "commercials" for Obama, as though I was being paid as a shill by the Dems. Well, that's not the case and never has been.
I'm on here railing away for Obama (and all other Dems at the federal level) because I believe in it. If others think that is beyond common sense, so be it, but please don't think ill of me for snapping back a bit every now and then at the perpetual funmakers of ole DD.
As for the subject, I still say there is nothing either more effective or more immediate that can be done by us citizen bystanders to start changing the tone of voluntary ignorance of issues in our country than electing Barack and Michelle. The two of them would create the biggest heads-up by young people to Washington talk that has ever been seen----because they both can explain complex things in a few words and would be bold in doing so----once past election. We need some new "interpreters" to shake things up in our culture, and those two are made to order.
Well, here's a useful bit of history: What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest.
But this paragraph really threw me:
The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?
I consider myself to be fairly well-read, but I cannot elucidate the differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties any more than that between Coke and Pepsi. Can you?
uncle July 2nd, 2008 1:32 pm
I'm sorry to inform you that at least in my State, there is no longer any thing like a civics class.
..................................................
It is ignorance not stupidity. The ignorance is the product of educational theories that feel good, but fail to teach anything. (BTW loved this Locust! "Of course, I will accept the argument that it's stupid to be that ignorant.")
The first problem begins when we fail to teach kids how to read or write. Fun or not learning to do that is required.
First you need the parent involved and responsible, the child must want to learn and the teacher must be able to teach the subject.
Next, you need to teach true facts with proven process, teaching techniques of learning and how to think.
Then you need discipline in order to teach anyone anything.
Seems simple enough to start, unfortunately we don't have much of it.
Those that are satisfied with the thought that Harriet Tubman should be mentioned more than George Washington or was more important in American History will be satisfied with what passes for an education these days in teaching American History. I think we should be ashamed.
This was just the first illustration of current textbooks that came to mind.
DD don't you think you went a bit overboard there with Ladybug? A sorry wouldn't go amiss. Thanks.
You know your country is in trouble when 30 % of high school students can't find the pacific
ocean on a world map.
Sadly, this article and recent history confirm how easily manipulated the people can be if they don't know what's happenin'. And the manipulators are the wealthy power brokers who are doing it for their own gain.
Another refrain of my song: The Enlightenment thought participation to be educational (J.S. Mill quote goes here.) We learn by doing and all. So democracy is the only form that educates the citizen. Isn't that nice?
Only trouble: We don't practice democracy, we have representative government, which educates members of Congress instead of the citizens. This piece documents that failure and implies the obvious remedy but does not state it; convert to democracy. I've been singing that song since 1964 but so far it has been a solo, not a chorus.
Q: What do you think about ignorance and apathy in this country? A: "I don't know and I don't care".
That about sums it up, people.
Most "voters" want someone (whether dog catcher or president) whom they fancy is like themselves. And if George Wanker Bush is like ourselves, like most Americans, don't even bother asking God to help us. It's done. The United States is in DESPERATE condition and requires extraordinary people to reshape this society and its politics. But voters don't want extraordinary people . . . they want someone they can have a beer with. So go on, sit at the bar with Obama or George Anheuser Busch, drink your Bud, and then go home and cut your throat.
ZeroPoint said (to me): "The 47 year complaining about today's youth was as ignorant as them when it was young."
I'm certain you're wrong. Today's young adults are the products of a lifetime of incessant sophisticated and highly manipulative advertising, video games and consumer electronics, and the vast wasteland that the internet has become. Let me add junk food to this mix, it doesn't just decay the teeth, it decays the brain too.
this is what happens when individuals feel no responsibility for their own existence or their impact on their world...we are bred and educated to feel that way so we will not desire anything more than a life based solely on consumption...anyone feeling responsibility for their own existence or impact would not be able to morally or ethically tolerate their role in the destructive nature of industrialization and consumption...that is why we are bred to believe in, without proof, benevolent and protective powers greater than ourselves, and to trust in, without reason, our leaders to act in our interests...why do I need to know anything? God and the United States Government will take care of everything...that's where they want us...they don't want us taking personal responsibility for planetary destruction, or rehabilitation...before learning can take place, one must turn off the 'feed' from the establishment...as long as you're plugged into their network, you'll never get your brain free to do your own thinking...who knows how long we'll have the internet? It's great right now, pick a subject, research it and learn...quickly...
Daniel David, castigating ladybug over 'commonsense' is a cheap shot.
That guy Daniel_David might once have employed that tactic but I expect a much higher level of discourse from you.
Keep in mind that there is a difference between 'stupidity' and 'ignorance'.
Ignorance is not knowing.
Stupidity is not thinking.
"About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms..."
This is ignorance, not stupidity.
Of course, I will accept the argument that it's stupid to be that ignorant.
ZeroPiontField:
No, you americans have not always been ignorant - in fact you used to be the most well informed and educated people in the world. You became ignorant when you adoptet the Preussian schoolsystem (which made the naziregime possible)at about the same time you handed over your economical (and thereby political) power to the bankers (the Bank of England) - around the year 1913.
The problem with understanding American "ignorance" is not establishing its existence. Various surveys have already done that. The difficult and most important challenge is to answer why America has found itself in this sorry state.
America is a nation of salesmen and women who are constantly hustling each other for everything from air freshner, medications for bowels, bladder, brains, and hearts, permanent security from evil "terrorists," various intoxicants, political happy phrases (i.e. "Yes. we can!"), wealth, a new, thinner body, and a good sex life. The job of the salesperson is not to educate or to tell the truth, but to make the person believe that buying the product will make them feel better.
Hard truths and the tragic realities of the life of individuals, states, and civilisations are downers that will make the person feel bad and will only get in the way of closing the deal. Keep everything upbeat, please! Close your eyes as Peter Pan advised, and say, with faith, over and over, "I can fly!" Things will turn out just fine. Don't listen to those naysayers!
The American public remains ignorant because it remains mired in the narcissistic notion that truth should help people feel better, live longer, and have more toys. No politician is going to be elected dogcatcher telling folks that the truth that the days of cheap gas are over, that an unregulated business climate will lead to accumulation of wealth in the few and the potential for large, recessional corrections of perenial greed, or that the glory days of the heroic "troops" fighting "evil" in the Middle East to protect the "homeland" were all a odious lie.
Ignorance will end when hard realities become impossible to ignore. A hard rain the will be indeed.
DD,
I just want to give my opinion and all I said was that this article didn't justify a commercial for Obama.
So if you think my posts don't bring anything to the discussion fine with me, but most of yours are no other than commercials about a party that is as bad as the one you want to defeat. So if we talk about contributions to the debate, I think yours is not outstanding either.
But like I said before, you have the right to believe whatever you want and express whatever you want, as I do.
And by the way, aside from your posts about how great the Dems are, I think you are a good poster that makes sense, so I am not trying to slap you, just expressing my opinions. The truth is I have no reason to not respect you. Just agreeing to disagree.
Americans have Always been ignorant.
The 47 year complaining about today's youth was as ignorant as them when it was young.
In this age of websites, Americans are actually more informed on average about the world than they were in the seventies.
Having an intelligent conversation about an american about world affairs is only a game of oneupmanship. Americans are excellent at reducing any conversation to their level of intelligence.
ladybug,
I guess I will have to endure your above admonition to me to "Please post with commonsense". (those are two words BTW)
But, if I can tear you away from slapping me, may I ask what YOU have posted above that enriched us here? What, oh what, is YOUR thought or purpose?
yah: we're ignorant. but the essay starts out by noting the various kinds of ignorance, and at least some of these stupidities are just human nature. we really do believe that if we ignore things, they won't bother us. this isn't just in relation to politics.
concerning our ignorance about our constitution: when i was put into civics class in 9th grade, all of us got one of those tiny "US Constitution" booklets. i don't remember ever studying it. somehow, though, it has stayed with me to this day. and yah: i do know what the ammendments are. i wonder if schools today still do the simple things: putting them in civics class and handing them something precious. the results are longlasting.
OMG, the section about young people voting is EXACTLY what I've been complaining about lately ! I'm 47, I do not want a bunch of 18-25 year olds deciding this election. Yes there are some very intelligent and mature and well-informed people in that age group, but the vast majority have zero interest in politics, history, and any other subject for which good knowledge is crucial for making good voting decisions. I'm afraid because this group is also easily brainwashed by advertisements, and Obama's campaign has cashed in on this gullibility BIG TIME. Very scary.
Kids are socialized when they are young and they develop habits they will practice for the rest for the rest of their lives.
1. How are they socialized? Corporate mainstream, profit driven media. 2. And, schools.
What happens in schools? Lots of teacher talk, lots of boring worksheets, sublimination of natural curiosity, lots of standardized tests.
In order to attack the problem, no. 1, you have to have a strong, public no. 2 that harnesses kids' natural curiosity and gets them engaged in active question seeking with accountability not based on test scores, but performance exhibibitions and portfolios. www.performanceassessment.org
www.essentialschools.org
translation of this article:
pay attention, and don't vote for mccain
Thank the holy stars for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Without them the upcoming generation would be totally ignorant in current political affairs.
DD,
And just how Barack and Michelle will educate this deeply ignorant populace in 4 or 8 years? Please post with commonsense. I think this piece didn't justify a commercial for the Obama campaign. But you have the right to express yourself
I'll be trashed for this (as usual), but the single biggest and easiest thing Americans can do right now to combat our own collective ignorance---especially among the younger set---is see to it that Barack and Michelle are elected.
Both of them would make the best use of the bully pulpit that has been seen in our lifetimes. And both of them would be doing it in a style that gets attention and invites new listeners.
El que nada sabe, nada teme
Translation: Those who know nothing, fear nothing
One of the reasons it's been so easy for this administration to trash the Constitution, spy on the American public, allow torture and invade two countries based on lies and deception.....an uninformed, non-reading, indifferent citizenship. How sad does it get?