Politics makes us mean and dumb

[Skybird]

I sometimes wonder when coincidence ends and synchronicity begins. As chance wanted it, just short time before I stumbled over Brennan, I had started to read about what they call "political psychology". Thats is a branch that is busy with research on how people get their potlical views and opinions, what influences them, how educated of the fields in poltics they are and so on.

Plenty of empoiricla findings there, some very clever experimental settings they have run, too. And the findings are absolutely desillusionising. Most people, the overwhelming majpirty, is clueless about the objcts of poltics. Most form their opinions basing on mechnisms like football fans in a club of fans: team colour decides the right and the wrong exclusively, period.

And then came Brennan and referred to all those names I just had started to read about and fired them like torpedoes into the fetish of general elections and the precious, the holy, the hopelessly overestimated shrine of having the right to "vote".

The competence to use that freedom, that right, to vote, to decide for this and agaunst that, needs a certain level of infiormation and education that most people simply lack. For reasons of that political psychology calls "rational ignorrance".

Indeed, most people are clueless hobbits or bullying, aggressive hooligans. Rational, educated Vulcans there are almost none. Most voters are hobbits. Most activists, campaign helpers and politicians are hooligans. There is heartbreaking plenty of empirical evidence in political psychology showing that becoming politically engaged in the usual, conformal ways society invites us to see as prcious and holy, lead NOT to higher education and informaiton and understanding.

I comoare it to a crowd of tourists aboard a Boeing flying towards their holiday destination, all wnat to party and all want to feel fine. And then comes the voting: the voting on what the pilot should do when and how. Passengers decide by majority vote what flap settings he shioukld set for takeoff. Where to set rotation speed? What climb speed? When to retract the gear? What cruise altitude? Where to mark top of descent? Approach speed, which one? Brake settings: 1, 2 or 3? Or even setting 4? Full flaps? Or is 30 sufficient? And so on, passenegers debate it and vote on it and everybody has his say and everybody is clueless and knows no stuff about nothing - but all demand to be treated like a holy expert. Becasue they have a "right".

The problem is, the elite Brennan argues to have the lead in politics, called epistocracy, doe snot exist as an elite. Its no Vulcans forming it, it is just more unscrupulous hooligans. We can see it in the Eu wonderfully: the EU just practices what I described: it feels authorized and justified to set the rules and demand that others should follow them. But it is no Vulcans making these rules, it is hooligans making them, lobbyistic holligans, narcissistic hooligans, attention-craving hooligans, ideology-drunk hooligans - but hooligans all of them nevertheless.

Hooligans that get electd by clueless hobbits. Ho could any good come from this? How could such an arranegment ever be not dysfunctional? Most people would serve poltic interest best if not getting engaged in politics and over politics, and not being interested at all.

To have a voting right for every Peter and Paul, is simply stupid. Such a right should base on whether somebody has the education and informaiton qualifying him, or not. And that alone still does not solv the problem of egoist versus altruist election decisions. Here is where the Ancient Greek come back into play, I think. There, only "citizens" had the right to vote. But the old Greek term for citizen meant by that "bands of armed people", in other words, citizens are military units of any kind. Soldiers. Who was allowed to bear arms? Only men (no women), only free men (no slaves, servants, subordinates), only rich free men (since they had to pay for their equipment and armor l by themselves). The latter is relevant since it was this elite, this wealthy elite, that was to defend the city against foreign aggressors, and to decide - via debate and majority vote on internal city issues and things of public interest. Those who were authorized to participate in these processes, at the same time had much at stake that they invested into the city - their private wealth and property, that is. Between only 5 and 15% of Greek city populations were seen as citizens. And thes ecitizens - were feudal elite of noble men. Thats is what democracy originally was - a feudal form of government!

Good old Ben, twice:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."


"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. But you have to catch it yourself."