and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??
This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.
and stable leadership' and 'coalition of chaos' every ****ing day??
This really is going to be a very tedious election indeed.
More than that. It is about the notion (not currently fashionable, I admit) that people should and can make up their own minds on the basis of discussion and debate, and that political decisions that affect people's lives can be made on this basis.
Party loyalty is always a big factor, but so are floating voters who consider each campaign on its own merits. Judging May in May, as it were.
The problem, I believe, with this level of cynicism is that it taps into the prevalent notion that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote - as we saw in the fury following the EU referendum. The alternative is to be ruled forever by 'experts' and technocrats who claim to know what is best for other people.
A analogy could be made, if you will forgive me, to the view of Monty (and others) that football fans are too stupid to be allowed into the ground where their lack of understanding of the game, and possibly vocal pronouncements on that basis, can only damage the outcome of the match.
British poltitics once consisted of solely of the whims of a King. Slowly over the centuries power was wrested down the ladder, and now everyone has a vote. I believe this is not something that should be given away.
Democracy In!
Hang on, you're not actually denying that people are generally stupid, or, more specific to the topic being discussed, insufficiently engaged with politics to make informed voting decisions, are you? In fact I know many people who are engaged with politics who I believe are ill-equipped to make informed decisions - and I'd count myself among them (which is partly why I don't vote).
Where you are wrong is assuming that believing this (as I do and as I believe you do, if you are being honest) does not necessarily mean we think democracy itself is a bad idea. It could simply mean that we believe democracy is great (albeit flawed) in spite of the fact that most of the people charged with deciding who controls it at any given time are stupid.
Equally, with football fans, yes I absolutely believe they are too stupid for their opinions to have any credibility or worth in terms of their actual substance, but I also recognise that without them football would be nothing and that therefore their freedom to attend matches and, alas, to voice their cretinious opinions, should and must be protected.
People are not God. They cannot see all ends.
To recognise this is not to consider them stupid, as much as you would like us both to share your misanthropy. A person of low education from Stoke might have an intuitive understanding of how political power should be distributed that, in my opinion, could be superior to the view of a university professor who insists that she, as a highly intelligent and educated expert, knows best and that the best thing is for people like them to decide the law of the land.
On another level, if a Surrey stockbroker always votes Tory purely because he believes it is in his interests, while a west Cumbrian ship-builder always votes Labour purely because she believes it is in her interests, then so be it. Better that they care little for the detail of the policies but have their say, than for them to have no say at all.
I agree that instinct and intuition can be valuable commodities within the marketplace of ideas and that entrenched ideology often pollutes the thinking of educated 'clever' people.
But I'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you break down my point, it is simply that current levels of intelligence and engagement are sub-optimal, and it would be better if people were smarter and more informed.
I know they are mere snapshots during which people are asked for their opinions off-guard, but you must have noticed that TV vox pops never manage to find anyone with anything remotely original or insightful to say?
I think the essential thing I am disagreeing with is your misanthropy. Look, there's nothing wrong with you aspiring to a higher level of political engagement, where engagement is defined in terms of an intelligent, balanced, nuanced, informed* analysis. I would like that too but I don't tip back the other way and decry everyone as stupid because the level of engagement is not as high as it might be.
The thing is, I know plenty of people who consider themselves smart and informed, but who I often disagree with when it comes to political outlook, largely because their primary source of information* is The Guardian. :shrug:
* A problem for me is a lack of balance and breadth in the range of views discussed in the most highly-consumed media sources.
You can't disagree with misanthropy. It may simply be that my sensibilities are offended by stupidity more than yours.
I don't believe that you genuinely feel that most people are not stupid. We both engage in the real world every day and we will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet. Sometimes we will underestimate or overestimate, but generally our instincts will not be far off the mark.
It is blindingly obvious that most people do not place importance on the critical thinking required to be a truly intelligent person (beyond IQ and General Intelligence) and instead focus their attentions on other things, some of which are of great value both to themselves and others and some that are not.
I will put it this way. As a general rule, the cleverest people I know tend to be the biggest ****s, the least fun to be around and the least likely to get their round in.
When it comes to voting the vast majority of people vote in their own self interest and even the stupid ones are generally able to work out what that is. Intelligence is not needed when it comes to voting. Or getting your round in.
We're all stupid. Just stupid in different ways. Doesn't seem to be much point in getting all out of shape about it. When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent or interesting or attractive. We just have very different priorities, it seems.
The Americans have a word for this, which is 'smart'. Smart meets not getting your round in because you are cleverer than everyone else and have uniquely worked out that if you don't ever get a round in you get you keep all your money and can go on to enjoy wealth and status. This makes you smart. :-|
See also many other ruthless examples of fiscal cùntery whereby screwing people over is something to aspire to because it shows how smart you are.
It sounds like our priorities are pretty much the same to me.
"We will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet."
"When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent [...]"