Should the Ignorant Vote?

CBS_test-pattern1950sA couple of days ago, I saw a snippet of a discussion about whether a person should have to pass both a civics and a current events test before they are allowed to vote. This idea has been around for a long time – I can remember a piece posted at CNN back in 2011 that was not so subtlety titled: “Don’t let ignorant people vote.” That got me to thinking about how people are kept ignorant and why there seems to be a booming business in peddling ignorance. Of course, political ideology always plays a role – politicians count on the fact that even though they are more work to sway, the ignorant make up an even larger percentage of the electorate than do dead people.

An observation I have made about people is that they tend to speak the way they think – admittedly not always true for everybody but I think it is for most. If you speak and react quickly and impulsively, it is likely that your thought process is also quick and impulsive. If you speak and react slowly and contemplatively, it is also likely that is the way you think. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule and the degree of intellect displayed in either of these scenarios is directly related to the quality of the words expelled from any given cakehole no matter the speed at which they are issued forth.

I think this also explains the superficiality of today’s so-called news. It seems that we have access to far more news sources and even though that access is now around the clock, the general public has less of an understanding of current events than they have ever had. In my mind, there are three reasons for that, 1) the understanding of the events the newsreaders read is superficial because that is the way they report them. Typically summed up in 15 to 30 seconds before moving on to the next “news” items with enough “entertainment” stories to keep us interested, the reporter or reporterette never stays with a story long enough to develop their own understanding of it, much less long enough to convey that understanding to others, 2) there is so much reporting overload that people cannot sort out the important from the asinine, that the “news” is simply background “noise” and 3) without someone to help point out how a 30 second snippet of China taking over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is connected to the US losing a significant strategic leverage in the area, the possibility that a person with an average public school education will make the connection on their own approaches zero.

Today, only the “news analysis” programs even begin to approach the level of detail necessary for a basic understanding of issues – and since

©Globe photos / lapresse 18-07-2009 Washington, USA varie È morto Walter Cronkite, leggenda del giornalismo Usa Aveva 92 anni. Racconto' agli americani i piu' importanti eventi del secolo scorso Walter Cronkite, il celebre anchorman della CBS che per il pubblico televisivo americano fece la cronaca di eventi storici quali lo sbarco sulla luna, l'assassinio di John Kennedy e lo scandalo Watergate, e' morto all'eta' di 92 anni Only Italy WALTER CRONKITE ©DM/GLOBE PHOTOS, INC.

these all come with a political bent, most people don’t consider them “news.” Fair enough – I don’t get my news from CBS’s 60 Minutes, the O’Reilly Factor of Fox News or Rachel Madcow on MSNBC. To get all angles and be truly informed, you would have to watch all three. In the old days when the Alphabet Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and Walter Cronkite decided what you needed to know, at least you had time to think about it in between – as a kid, I remember seeing a 30 minute morning news show (mostly focused on local news and weather), a 30 -60 minute noon broadcast (mostly the same with “breaking news” salted in), an hour long 6 PM broadcast where the heavy national and world news was discussed and a 30 minute 10 or 11 PM broadcast that was basically a recap of the 6 PM news – all of that with nothing in between, so people were discussing and thinking about what was reported in those broadcasts. Not saying that was right or that the networks didn’t have their own agendas, it was just easier for people to digest what the talking heads were delivering.

What is the answer? I’m not so sure that there is a clear one. I know that not everyone has the same interest in history, philosophy or the same appetite for news consumption as I do. I do think that there needs to be a basic understanding of the issues to avoid being swayed solely by populism or a Madison Avenue ad campaign. I’d like to blame the schools but in truth, the responsibility for learning is as much or more the responsibility of the student than it is the teacher. I have often quoted Immanuel Kant (“a real pissant who was very rarely stable”) who wrote:

“A man may postpone his own enlightenment, but only for a limited period of time. And to give up enlightenment altogether, either for oneself or one’s descendants, is to violate and to trample upon the sacred rights of man.”

In short, to be “enlightened”, we must be constantly aware of our ignorance.

6 thoughts on “Should the Ignorant Vote?

  1. I am a participant in a group of 4-6 men that gather from 6 am to 7 am weekday mornings to drink coffee and talk about lots of stuff including the news of the day. That is actually a stretch since only one besides myself seems to ever watch or listen to any news at all. The other 4 tend to know plenty about fishing, hunting or most any sport, but are out in left field when Jim and I start discussing what is happening in our city, our state or the country and world. Even though they qualify as “the politically ignorant”, I still want them to be able to vote since I am pretty sure they vote as Jim and I tell them they should.

    • Prollum is….the same situation exists in the Demmycrat and Illegal world. And they are importing even more “ignorant” voters by the day. Which far outstrips your and Jim’s other 4 guys.

  2. Should the ignorant vote? Depends on who defines “ignorant”.
    Competency tests eventually become tools to exclude legitimate voters. Smacks of Jim Crow, but along ideological lines instead of racial.
    And really, those who control the process don’t want competent people voting because it complicates their grand plans.

  3. ” Should the ignorant Vote” ?

    Should the ignorant be allowed to drive trains, operate on folks in the hospital or manage other’s retirement funds ?


  4. Ignorance: who decides who is ignorant? The statists argue anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant and unenlightened. Those of us who read and study philosophy and America’s founders realize nearly everyone is ignorant of America’s Constitutional design and her built-in limits.

    America is lost because “the old days when the Alphabet Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) and Walter Cronkite decided what you needed to know” — they indoctrinated with purposeful ignorance at least 3 generations of Americans.

    There is a new minority who is re-discovering truth with access to the internet; intellectual freedom and knowledge somehow is bubbling up. Too little, too late? Time will tell.

    The vast majority believe, Government can and SHOULD do anything and everything it sets out to do, that is ignorance of America’s social compact – our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Most fail to realize nearly all of America’s problems are created by illegal Government intervention and favoritism. Any new social/economic solution that proposes a government solution rather than government restraint will fail also.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.