On November 8th the political scientist Charles Franklin made an unusually forthright remark. Asked why voters vote against their own interests, he answered "I'm not endorsing the American voter. They're pretty damn stupid." While it's strange to hear it spoken out loud in democracy-loving America, it's an idea we've all contemplated at some point. How else can you explain the presidential election of 2008 (or 2004, if you prefer)? Pundits have written volumes cataloging the alleged contradictions and mistakes of the average voter. The reactions to the latest debt commission are a perfect example of this - supposedly, Americans don't like its plan because they want to cut the deficit without cutting spending or raising taxes.
But is it true? While there's no specific program that a majority of Americans favor cutting spending on, when given a list of 14 priorities they favored, on average, cutting spending on two of them. They have plenty of time to be that picky about dealing with the deficit. The US currently has a middle-of-the-road ranking as the 12th highest debt-to-GDP ratio out of the OECD's 37 countries. Japan has had, for decades, a debt-to-GDP ratio nearly 3 times America's and it's been stuck fighting <i>de</i>flation. The debt just isn't that big a deal and voters know it: only 10-20% of them rank the deficit as Congress' highest priority, varying across polls. CBS's latest poll found only 4% ranking the deficit as the number one priority! It's more a bête noire for the pundit class than one of the top problems facing America.
More fundamentally, this criticism of American democracy suffers from hubris. If a decision by the polity doesn't make sense to me, the problem is more likely to be with my ability to make sense of things than the polity's ability to decide. I haven't run a country successfully for several hundred years, after all, so my resume is a bit skimpy next to the American people's. If I rush to find fault with the polity because I don't like a decision they made it would reflect a sophomoric faith in my own ability over the wisdom of trusting in an institution that's greater than any one person could be- including me or you.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Deal With The Devil
Creationists sporadically get angry at their elected representatives for not doing enough to “teach the controversy,” meaning allowing or even mandating the teaching of Christianity in science class. They feel hoodwinked, so they try to nominate a far right politician to be more obedient to their agenda. They’re wrong to do this, though, and they ignore the principled case for moderate conservatives taking their votes while ignoring the specifics of their demands.
First we need to deal with the spurious arguments that creationism or “intelligent design” are science and at home in the science classroom. They aren’t. The scientific method, and the reason we teach kids science, are about asking “why?” and looking around for the answer. It’s the opposite of science to put a halt to that search by invoking an undetectable, unpredictable entity. Kids don’t become engineers by praying over a set of blueprints; they become engineers by asking “why?” and searching for the answer.
That doesn’t mean science is mutually exclusive with religiosity. The scientific method can’t lead one to God, but that’s because it doesn’t purport to answer many of life’s toughest questions. Religion is an appropriate tool, and science an inappropriate tool, for answering questions like “why is life worth living?” That question is essential to leading a good life but inappropriate for the science classroom. So is the method for answering it.
So why do people use religion as a tool for answering questions that science can answer? Because science’s answers are necessarily uncertain and temporary. Religion offers eternal verities. It’s fine for someone to prefer the latter to the former, but it’s not fine to deny children access to the former because you want to emphasize the latter. For better and for worse we need science’s fluid epistemology to handle the modern world and to stay competitive.
This disposition towards preferring eternal truths and constancy still ought to be represented in a democracy, however, even if teaching creationism is an unworkable plan. That’s where moderate conservative politicians come in. It’s their role to preserve the truths worth preserving without preventing the change that’s necessary to avoid stagnation and self-destruction.
To succeed as a society we have to recognize the wisdom we've inherited in our ways of life. We also need to recognize what we need to change to adapt to a changing world. To do the latter we sometimes have to abandon ideas that appear to help with the former. That’s why creationists have to trust moderate conservatives to represent them even when those politicians aren’t enacting the creationists’ specific wishes.
First we need to deal with the spurious arguments that creationism or “intelligent design” are science and at home in the science classroom. They aren’t. The scientific method, and the reason we teach kids science, are about asking “why?” and looking around for the answer. It’s the opposite of science to put a halt to that search by invoking an undetectable, unpredictable entity. Kids don’t become engineers by praying over a set of blueprints; they become engineers by asking “why?” and searching for the answer.
That doesn’t mean science is mutually exclusive with religiosity. The scientific method can’t lead one to God, but that’s because it doesn’t purport to answer many of life’s toughest questions. Religion is an appropriate tool, and science an inappropriate tool, for answering questions like “why is life worth living?” That question is essential to leading a good life but inappropriate for the science classroom. So is the method for answering it.
So why do people use religion as a tool for answering questions that science can answer? Because science’s answers are necessarily uncertain and temporary. Religion offers eternal verities. It’s fine for someone to prefer the latter to the former, but it’s not fine to deny children access to the former because you want to emphasize the latter. For better and for worse we need science’s fluid epistemology to handle the modern world and to stay competitive.
This disposition towards preferring eternal truths and constancy still ought to be represented in a democracy, however, even if teaching creationism is an unworkable plan. That’s where moderate conservative politicians come in. It’s their role to preserve the truths worth preserving without preventing the change that’s necessary to avoid stagnation and self-destruction.
To succeed as a society we have to recognize the wisdom we've inherited in our ways of life. We also need to recognize what we need to change to adapt to a changing world. To do the latter we sometimes have to abandon ideas that appear to help with the former. That’s why creationists have to trust moderate conservatives to represent them even when those politicians aren’t enacting the creationists’ specific wishes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)