Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How These Gibbering Numbskulls Came to Dominate Washington
The degradation of intelligence and learning in American politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies
How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind's closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are? How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist?
Like most people on my side of the Atlantic, I have for many years been mystified by American politics. The US has the world's best universities and attracts the world's finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage.
There have been exceptions over the past century - Franklin Roosevelt, JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and survived - but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a qualification for the presidency). Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan's response to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate. Carter - stumbling a little, using long words - carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and said: "There you go again." His own health programme would have appalled most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents look like wonks.
It wasn't always like this. The founding fathers of the republic - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others - were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin?
On one level, this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby's book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies.
One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.
Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism. During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for instance, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin's theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy - now known as social Darwinism - of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer's doctrine, promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people being weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic inequalities were both justifiable and necessary.
Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of social Darwinism.
But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf opened up. "In the south", Jacoby writes, "what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order."
The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest denomination in the US, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid. In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state's state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time.
This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln's career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment, it is a recipe for confusion.
Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason intellectuals struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with communism a long time ago has been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are communists. Almost every day men such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly rage against the "liberal elites" destroying America.
The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite - like the neocons (some of them former communists) surrounding Bush - has managed to pitch the political conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been successfully branded as elitism.
Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance.
163 Comments so far
Show AllMonbiot has made a great point here about America. It is interesting to note how the worst in our education system comes from the religious right in the south and midwest, but also from the heavily ethnic urban areas. The only way to solve the mis-education of our youth is to fully nationalize the education system. But this plan will never go through for many reasons.
The first is that a plan like that would either require higher taxes for all to pay for expanding the crumbling programs to meet suburban standards, or to lower the suburban standards. Since lowering the suburban standards of education would meet heavy opposition, for many good reasons, the expanding of other programs must occur. This would involve all of America to pay more taxes to pay for the education of all the less fortunate in our country. Does this not sound like the REAL AMERICAN WAY, equal opportunity? But American ideals are followed by Americans only when it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. This would be seen as Socialism, Redistribution of Wealth, when really its the American Way.
Second, the religious right in our country would not allow federal control over what is taught in their schools. Ignorance is the most powerful tool of the religious right, and to actually educate their populace would cause the people not to blindly follow the doctrine of their church. Real education causes people to question, causes people to become involved, causes people to actually understand the world they live in. An truly educated American populace would not be led around like sheep, and no one who could make this change wants to see their power to herd us around challenged.
“I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
There is only one truth but an infinite variety of lies. What's formidable about the current lie is the infinitely long line of backup lies waiting to take its place, to keep the truth hidden. Reach for the truth, people. It's our only hope.
"Reach for the truth, people. It's our only hope."
Excellent point. And we must realize that we will never reach the truth, but through the constant reaching for it we stay one step ahead of the lies.
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
It's the IDEOLOGY of fundamentalists, NOT religion itself. For example, why when the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill" did fundamentalists back an unecessary war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?
Part of the reason is that there are a couple of sticking points. One which comes quickly to mind is abortion, and there are a couple more, but not THAT many reasons or none SO important as to divide our nation, to divide us as a people.
When will people put aside their religious dogma at least temporarily so that we may unite in solving the bedrock major problems of America?
Maybe November 4th we will do just that. Pray to your god whether it be Mohammad, Krisha or Christ that this comes to pass.
RT,
I agree with Jefferson, but am puzzled by your unwillingness to follow the man you quote.
I fear that to say ‘the system is terrible and will never be fixed’ is not reason but emotion talking, a despairing experience of the world. You’re entitled to it of course, but I’m not sure it serves us. Delightfully and ironically-named though you seem to be, the statement unfortunately fulfills the purpose in your name. I disagree. Many things have seemed impossible right up to the point where they happened. I don’t think it works this way, but if you want to try to look at it ‘rationally’ look at it this way: you can choose between your current feeling of despair and the possible feeling of possibility and hope, not projecting it onto a particular personal, religious, political or philosophical savior but keeping it yourself and doing something about it. Psychologist Judith Lipton said “The therapy for despair is action.”
There is plenty of ignorance everywhere in america. I want to make a point about the brainwashing that occurs when we are educated to believe that a "brand" is ours to believe in: the "Republican" brand or the "Democrat" brand. There are actually candidates outside the one-party system that do understand the need for major educational reform. We also have to realize that religion plays a large part in ignorance and insanity in america.
Thank you SO much for hitting the nail on the head Mr. Monbiot. Religion (and in particular Old Testament Christianity) is the one thing we've been programmed to exclude in discussions when in fact it's the problem underlying most of what ails the US.
But I have to say, the fundies are bad, but at least they're honest in a way. The so-called "liberal" Christians, like Thom Hartmann and Bill Press, are the ones that anger me the most. On the one hand they pose arguments and use reasoning to make their points. And they tell us how we're all one happy human family. Then in the next sentence you hear them tell us how they are Christians, and "Amen" to this and that. No matter how you spin it, Christianity, and all organized religion for that matter, places faith over reason (but doesn't necessarily exclude reason), and has an underlying theme of Us versus Them (I'm going to heaven, you're not). So liberal Christians IMO are more hypocritical than fundies. But keeping the religion-speak and labels, they just serve to legitimize and aid in perpetuating the fundies.
I go even further than you and believe the reason that Obama supporters have such a disconnect as far as his record goes is based on "faith" based brainwashing techniques.
What galls me is the fact that religion even has a place in the selection of our leaders. Why would someone think that because a particular candidate is a Christian (or at least claims to be for electability) they would make a better leader than someone who is an agnostic, or atheist, or deist, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or whatever? IMO, religion=superstition, plain and simple. The definition of dogma is belief in something that either has no evidence to back the belief up, or is directly contrary to evidence that exists. How does belief in something that has no evidence whatsoever to back it up make a competant leader? To me, it seems to be the logical exact opposite. Why would anyone want to elect someone who so obviously thinks so illogically, or worse yet, lets someone else think and form opinions for them (their preacher?) But as it stands today in this country, if you aren't a believer in a bearded guy who lives in the sky who will sentence you to an eternuty of agony if you break one of his rules but loves you, and sent his only child to Earth to die for your fuck ups, you are demented and will not be elected. In this country, in the 21st century, our population places belief in superstition above education, experience, and knowledge. And people wonder why we are the laughing stock of the world.
Very good point(s). If fundamentalists think that their brand(s) of religion is/are the one "true religion" they(perhaps)have another thing coming. There are MANY religions (and ones older than Christianity)that have as central themes a mother named Mary (or some variation of Mary) 12 disciples, or orbiters, a god called the "Son" or the "Sun" etc, etc. I was shocked when I saw the vid on You Tube. In fact, at the beginning of the vid it warns that if you are a fundamentalist you may not want to watch. I wish I had the link, but I couldn't find it. Any help, anyone?
Good article. The right has been successful in suppressing rationality in many areas through clever marketing, old fashioned longhair preachers and their well-heeled contemporary friends.
A lot of our miseducation also comes from the commercial mainstream - from a barrage of advertising and entertainment that distracts, numbs, dumbs down and skews values. Explosions, sensationalism, speed, loud noise, glitz and glamor, vulgar sexuality, and promotion of instant gratification compete to occupy space in our brains. Language is debased and approximate. This applies to much of the so-called news.
People are exhausted from problems and hard work, unable to think clearly because they are malnourished from fake foods and sugar. Also psychotropic drugs are widespread and blunt the critical abilities of people.
It would help if we cut back on consumerism and gave our brains a rest by striving for quality, simplicity and moderation.
Joe
Good comment. But don't for a minute give our academic elites a pass for distortuing education into teaching kids what to think rather than how to think. They bear much of the burden of the failure of education too.
We all have a hand in it.
We have virtually no education in this country anymore, at least education that prepares the student for life after school. With the barrage of tests that are administered to students to test both their knowledge in areas the state deems important (regardless of whether that knowledge is beneficial in life or nice to know useless information), and test the "competance" of the teachers, there is no time to teach anything that is actually useful. Instead, students are learning to pass standardized tests and a tremendous amount of classroom time is devoted purely to passing the tests they have to take. When students do well on these standardized tests, the politicians can then go out and campaign on how successful they have been in the education of your children as shown by the high scores on the exams. But ask one of these kids who Dick Cheney is and all you get is a blank look. How sad!
I can't argue with that.
The cure is relatively simple. Throw money at it. PAY teachers better salaries up front and include bonuses for outstanding performance. Many taxpayers won't go for it though.
I live in Arizona and 16 years ago there was an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes for more money for text books for the public school system. My wife and I didn't have kids at the time and we voted for it. Our neighbors all had kids and all voted AGAINST it, stating "You can't just throw money at the problem." Well, when new text books are needed, that is EXACTLY what it takes, right? Even to help THEIR OWN CHILDREN they would not vote to raise taxes enough to buy new school books, and these were people all with young children. Pathetic. It was like they were saying, "Heck, ignorance was good enough for me, so it's good enough for my young-uns too."
BTW, not that it really means anything, but they were ALL blue-collar folks.
Agreed. Teaching young people "what to think" rather than "to think" poses the greatest danger.
Oh and I forgot the pundits like Greenspan, Friedman and Kissinger who are portrayed as experts to whom we must cede all of our common sense, moral grounding and critical thinking abilities. Learn learn learn and think for yourself.
Joe
George, American ignorance is a two headed monster.
Monster one is athletics. Athletes dominate school administration in America in the public schools. I suggest that over 90% of School superintendents and principal's rise from the coaching staff. You can't rid the smell of jock in the schools without ridding the schools of jocks. America is so thoroughly dumb that it does not put academics in charge of schools.
Monster two is privilege. Children of privilege go to private schools without ever having to face struggle and reality in America. They ultimately graduate unfamiliar with the concept of real pain or struggle. Additionally their privilege provides them with a sense of superiority and invincibility. That's why Ivy League graduates populate Wall Street and systematically lead the U.S. down the road of economic corruption and collapse.
In conclusion: We have the lower and middle class undereducated and infused with the jock mentality of unquestioning discipline and marginal learning. And we have the upper class over educated and lacking any sense of conscience or social responsibility rooted in reality.
This is known as the "old one two." It is a sure fire method to knock America on it's arce. American's are high achievers, it worked !!!
How did they get there? They were elected. It is a profound indictment of the intelligence of the American public.
"Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics."
*its hardly bestial. Its typically human. Although you could argue that humans are the worst of the beasts.
Nature doesnt work the way humans like to perceive it--law of the jungle.
Darwinism also paved the way for the most viciously human attacks on members of other species(first nations if you will).
Vivisection was considered a blight until Darwin came along. And even pollution found some support in the notion that progress would solve everything and the best solution to a problem created by science is more science.
I hope you no longer think vegetarians are grey skinned George.
They must have done a good job covering up Tobey Maguire's greyness in Spider-man.
Monbiot should explain to us Americans how such Gibbering Numbskulls Came to Dominate Europe using examples like Sarkozy, Berlusioni, Blair, and Brown amongst many others? After all, just like the Democrats enable the Republicans in DC and elsewhere, the European Middle Classes enable Washington to be numbskulls in power, too.
I can't comment on Sarkozy or Berlusconi, but I wouldn't describe either Blair or Brown as "gibbering numbskulls". Blair is clever but shallow, and, vis-a-vis Dubya, was rather like the weedy runt in the schoolyard wanting to be a member of the big boys' gang. Brown is serious but lacking in charm and the common touch, and badly compromised by his failure to rein in Blair's wilder forays onto the world stage.
Of course, we in Britain have have our fair share of knuckle-scraping political Neanderthals, but over here Creationists are a tiny minority with no influence on our education system (not for the want of their trying), and we have no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh - well, we did try once, but since the gentleman in question (David Starkey) was an openly gay university professor of considerable academic standing, the idea didn't get very far.
"and we have no equivalent of Rush Limbaugh"
You may have him if you like. I don't think we have any further need of him.
Limbaugh did appear on the radio here some months ago, in rather bizarre circumstances. Apparently, he is almost blind, and appeared on a programme about disability, interviewed by one of our top radio journalists, Peter White, who is himself blind. It almost made one feel sorry for the Cigarr'd One.
So Limbaugh is wanting sympathy for his becoming blind and disabled? Believe it or not, I'm sorry to hear that he is becoming disabled, just as I would feel badly for anyone else becoming disabled. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. At least he has millions to fall back on if he cannot work any more. However, before it affected him, he, just like the rest of the republicans, didn't give a rat's ass about people who suffered from disabilities. You know, that kind hearted every man for himself attitude. I am disabled also, but have to live with the income provided by Social Security disability (along with Bu$h's Medicare Part D prescription drug program which basically amounts to corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries), which amounts to next to nothing. Limbaugh, like Bu$h, thinks Social Security is socialism and therefore evil. I'll be more than happy to trade places with him if he still believes this. Perhaps he even thinks that you can live on the benefits provided by Social Security, which by the way I paid into through FICA taxes for 35 years. Believe me, if Mr. Limbaugh had to live on disability benefits, he would be in for one rude awakening.
I've heard that Limbaugh is actually a pretty decent guy and that all the political right-wing blathering is just that, all show to make a buck. Too bad SO many peole buy into it, and too bad a decent man would sell his soul for the almighty dollar.
Had you seen Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox, who is severely disabled due to Parkinson's disease, you wouldn't use "feel sorry" and Limbaugh in the same paragraph.
Sometimes we really do reap what we sow.
I had forgotten about his mocking Michael J. Fox, and you are correct, perhaps he is once again reaping what he has sown. (The first round was his calling drug users scum of the Earth while he himself was eating Oxycontin pills like candy.)
I do not agree with Sarkozy on many things, but he is informed and articulate. He knows about countries, not just the ones that he can see from France. He knows how to construct a speech to charm his critics.
Joe
I'm trying to picture an openly gay, respected academic Rush Limbaugh with an upper-crust English accent and peeing my pants!
Berlusconi is the only one who could have been straight out of America. The rest is far more educated and conversant about just about any international problem without needing an army of advisers to teach them the facts before they open their mouths.
Good point. Further, one must remember the old axiom;
"To remain silent and be thought a fool is far better than to speak and remove all doubt." Politicians and people in general who open their mouths and immediately insert their feet would be well-served by this saying. Another thing to remember is that it's not always what you know, but what you DON'T know, and that you recognize that simple fact and don't act "from the gut" but seek out the correct solution(s).
Speaking of gibbering numskulls Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the supporting cast in Washington fit the bill. They gave us Alito and Thomas, FISA, took impeachment off the table, funded the Iraq war, gave us a minimum wage bill instead of a living wage bill, and continue to collect cash windfalls from their corporate masters.
Monbiot makes some good points but I wish he would have considered the effect that Cold War had on the increasing religiosity of the US. The Soviet Union was officially atheistic, and the corporate oligarchs, who were also increasingly atheistic (as Social Darwinism is much more consistent with atheism than with Christianity, as supported by the arguments of the religious and anti-corporate William Jennings Bryan), saw an opportunity in that, particularly at the height of the Cold War in the wake of McCarthyism. They found that by promoting Christianity they could help in the cause of demonizing the Soviet Union, making a simple argument to the Christian commoners that the Soviets and all communists and socialists must be evil because they are atheists and therefore no decent and sincere Christian would ever consider communism or socialism as a viable alternative (ignoring that there are innumerable variations of communism or socialism and that plenty of Christians had been socialists).
Note that the Pledge of Allegiance, originally written in 1892 by the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy, had the words "under God" added to it in 1954. Also note that "In God We Trust" became the US national motto in 1956. Also, if one watches many movies from the 1950s one will note a recurring theme of the religious warrior defeating the evil Nazi (who is often represented as godless, ignoring history) or of course the soulless dark-hearted commie. And Reagan really brought the marriage of Christianity and anti-communism to its apogee.
Good Points. Chris Hedges, in another article recently, also misses the point of the corporate suckling of the religious right and hate-radio rabid right, and the natural compatibility with corporatism and right-wing "populism".
Must watch video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiXCX0
That was a hoot!
Hoot? That video is profoundly disturbing. Those people exemplify what this article is about.
Mr. Monbiot seems to think that all the numbskulls in Washington are Republicans, and all his examples of Washington "geniuses" are Democrats.
Harharharhar!!!
Maybe that's true on "Planet Monbiot," but down here where the rest of us dwell, the Democrats don't look much like geniuses either.
Are these the same genius Democrats whose only noteworthy environmental initiative in the last 20 years is offshore drilling?
Harharharhar!!!
Are these the same genius Democrats who keep funding the genocidal occupation of Iraq?
Harharharhar!!!
Are these the same genius Democrats who nominated a blathering con-man who supports an expanded war in Afghanistan, offshore drilling, an "individual right to bear arms," NAFTA-Peru, the warrantless wiretapping FISA bill, and an $850 billion give-away to the same speculators who broke the banks?
Harharharhar!!!
If Bush is stupid, what are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who roll over like puppies every time Bush barks?
Harharharhar!!!
Mr. Monbiot apparently thinks the pathetic drooling Democrats are a little smarter than the sadistic gibbering Republicans, but...
Maybe American voters deserve something better than a choice between gibber and drool.
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Jacob Freeze
People might be a little more inclined to give your opinions consideration if you didn’t make quite so much effort at being offensive. Openly displaying your superiority complex isn’t particularly conducive to meaningful communication. Whether you’re right or wrong is irrelevant if no one reads your post impartially.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
America's peculiar religiosity is unquestionably at the heart of the matter.
It is unthinkable that a politician could attain high office in the USA without affirming his belief, real or feigned hardly matters, in an accepted religion.
Even on many otherwise progressive web sites, any comment not "respectful" of religion will be expunged.
As the great physicist Stephen Weinberg said in response to some quotitian essay about how we must all be tolerent of one anothers beliefs, words to the effect that, No. We have come too far and won too many hard fought battles for that.
I could not agree more.
....and do we imagine that those indoctrinated into the Roman catholic empire did not feign their belief as a way to rule the world? What ever the prevailing popular belief is, is the form that whomever wishes to rule will take. Though we may govern with the science of politics today with the invocation of the blessings of God instead of governing directly for God as dictated by his representative on earth through the religion of belief in God through pope or king, what we have amounts to the same exact equation. Ruling through the ruling of transient beliefs and desires of the ruling classes today who believe that Gods will or the will of good is now manifesting through our democratic social system and just as the old days confirmed through the candidate/savior king with the most cash to do our will.
Simple, this country has been CORN-FED for 50 years and slowly but steadily dumbed down. If people really want to reverse the damage, how about they consider increasing voter turnout in local and even state elections? Why do we the people allow abysmally low turnouts as low as 10% on local levels to happen? And what about judges, teachers, sheriffs, etc ... ? People need to pay attention first to local elections as they affect them the most. Only when more attention is paid to the local level can we the people find better common ground and eventually replace the goons in Washington.
Absolutely brilliant comment. A strategy for success.
This is a strategy that will have long term benefits for the public.
"People need to pay attention first to local elections as they affect them the most." I agree. Also, there is more chance to draft candidates to your liking, see the candidates in action without much intervening hype and to influence the outcomes using a do-able amount of organization and cash.
Joe
Excellent!
Some years ago Adlai Stevenson delivered one of his typically well reasoned and
intellectualy sound speeches. After which a staff member rushed up to congratulate him and said "Great speech, Governor. All thinking Americans will certainly vote for you."
To which Stevenson reported replied: "That's not enough. I need a majority!"
As a recovering fundamentalist myself I can say, from my own experience, that the biggest drawback to fundamentalism is it's practcal elimination of curiosity and inquiry. If you have all the answers, why bother to ask questions?
How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind's closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are?
The above mentioned imbeciles are exactly like much of the American population who, products of a failed public school system and the end result of spending 6 - 8 hours a day watching television, are the equivalents of the dial tone on a telephone: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. However, I believe even the dial tone knows the duties of the vice president.
'spending 6 - 8 hours a day watching television...'
BINGO !!!!! - kill your television now and pick up a copy of jerry mander's 'four arguments for the elimination of television'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Arguments_for_the_Elimination_of_Television
also...
Endangered Minds: Why Children Don't Think And What We Can Do About It... Jane Healy
The Plug-In Drug: Television, Computers, and Family Life... by Marie Winn
tv elicits a response similar to psychotropic drugs, decreasing a person's attention span, making it difficult to focus on one point for more than 10 minutes (ask a person addicted to tv, when was the last time you picked up a book?). the flickering blue campfire in america's living room is on par w/ religion - in terms of america's dumbing down (don't read nietzsche - try dancin w/ the stars). i'm surprised monbiot didn't make this connection...
...peace...