- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Shenkman is an academic and so has immediate traction among those who value intellect. Unfortunately, it is ignorance which defines what we actually "know." For instance, the academic Shenkman mistakenly refers to our national structure as "a democracy" when, in fact, we are a Republic, something I'm sure he knows on some level, especially since he harps so sardonically on Hamilton.
The difference between a republic and a democracy is rather similar to the difference between a jury and a lynch mob. In fact, direct democracy, something the current administration has been furiously trying to inflict on the middle east wholesale, is nothing more than a potential lynch mob. The notion that the majority rules seems to imply a corollary that the majority is right. Good and well if, in fact, the majority is right; however, due to the improbability of such a situation obtaining prior to the arrival of the New Age, the marjority is, at best, one hopes, close to right on balance.
We now know, based upon the past seven and one-half years experience, that this is not so. As Shenkman himself points out, the reliance on 20-second sound bites, talking points, slogans, and repeated lies (The Big Lie is what it used to be called) has replaced the nominal informed state of the people.
It's not that the people are ignorant, because, again, ignorance is what defines what we know. It is, rather, the willful stupidity, the plague of our time, as practiced by the people, the people who have been too lazy to think and have been living in an "Oxbow Incident" state of mind for the past 25 years, which has disabled the process to the extent that such a question as the title of the article might even be asked.
We do not require wonkish knowlege of every detail of every policy put forth, nor be proficient in political science, to make informed decisions. What we do need, however, is to be capable of rational, critical thinking. Reason.
It is not only our system of public education which has failed, but the premium we place upon knowlege, reason and critical thinking. If we don't value a thing it soon will not be taught nor even tolerated in polite company.
And therein lies the last nail: the over-polite company of liberals who are unwilling to examine themselves (or the institution of liberalism) has led to the rampant amok behavior of Republicans who have developed the fatal condition known as neoconservatism. Fortunately, the problem (the neocon problem, at least) seems to be burning itself out for lack of fuel. Now, with the rise of an utterly different breed of Democratic candidate, the question strains: can liberalism become self-examining once again? Because if it can and if it does, that New Age may well be within reach, and we would then need not be asking "Are you too dumb to vote?"
Pain is a great teacher. I'm betting on the base motive of freedom from pain to turn the people toward their better nature between now and the first of next year. I'm betting by November we will have proven we are, on balance, smart enough to vote, and, once having proven that, we will like the feel of it enough to begin to think again.
The window is open. Breathe. It's smart.
