Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Sarah Palin and the brand new 2010 Death Panels

We get the government we deserve. This is a well-known phrase, and it's considered to be cynical. Even though it could mean that if we're good we deserve good government, it tends to be used only when someone is saying that the government sucks because the people suck.

As for me, I think it's true, and this is the way it should be. The government represents the people, and if the people are well-intentioned, well-informed, and reasonably intelligent, then the government will reflect this. If the people are selfish, ignorant, and stupid, then this too will be reflected in government. Isn't that the essence of democracy?

These days, people on the left have been gnashing their teeth over Sarah Palin's description of end-of-life counseling provisions in the evolving health care plan as 'death panels'. However, a recent poll showed that 45% of Americans believe that the health care proposal will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care to the elderly. I have to believe that this number would have been somewhat lower if the question had been asked before Palin's comment, but I suspect it would have gotten at least 20%, mostly the people who believe Obama wasn't born in America.

To the media's credit, it tended to correctly report that the idea of 'death panels' was false. To its discredit, it broadcast the false charge loudly and often, because it was an incendiary charge made by a politician who's better than anyone in America at getting both sides stirred up with her every utterance. (And, naturally, such things are good for sales, ratings, page views, etc.) Without the amplification of the mainstream media, the charge would have been picked up mainly by right-wing radio and Fox News. So, this is the problem: a lot of people don't read much further than the headlines, and if the headline didn't say it was false, then it might be true. This sort of thing is what makes advertising work. We might buy a new toothpaste based solely on the ad campaign. Now, if someone bought a new car based on no other information than the word of a car ad, car exec, or car salesman, we'd think they were gullible and/or stupid. Of course, you do research before making such a big purchase.

If government reflects its citizens, then this is as good an example as any. If every citizen read the news diligently, and carefully sorted out false charges from true information, the percentage of people who believed the 'death panels' charge would be 0%. But clearly, that does not happen. People like Palin who spread stuff like this know that, and they know the best way to exploit people's fear of change of this magnitude is to muddy up the waters with lies, the bigger the better. (And it's not as though Democrats have never done this; the Republicans are simply better at it.) But to me, in the end, the blame lies with the people: the correct information is out there, but many don't seek it. Many don't understand, or make any effort to understand, the distinction between the media reporting what someone said and reporting facts.

Now, people have busy lives, and I can understand why people don't want to come home from a hard day at work and pay close attention to what's true and what's not in the health care debate. But much as not researching a car before you buy it may lead to the purchase of an inferior car (or one unsuitable for your needs), the collective result of being ill-informed on a crucial government policy is the creation of one that at best is less than perfect, and at worst serves the interests of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and politicians more than it serves the interests of sick people.

3 comments:

  1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    If the people are selfish, ignorant, and stupid, then this too will be reflected in government. Isn't that the essence of democracy?
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    But there are too many selfish, ignorant and stupid people!! Oh dear, I think I've lost faith in democracy. :-(

    Democracy was a good idea, but I'm afraid too many people are selfish and are entirely ruled by their self interest, full stop. But worse than that - by their *short term* self interest. A bird in the hand and such. Tax breaks and more money now, even if there are warnings that it will create a huge economic bubble over time that will burst later. It's the nature of man to put off unpleasant things.

    Too many voters in our democracies are idiots or vote only for their own personal short-term gain. I know that sounds like an elitist comment, but I include myself - or at least my younger self - in the 'idiot' brigade. It sort of amazes me to think that, when I was young and uninformed, my vote was in every way the equal of the vote of a law or economics professor. That my vote could 'cancel out' that of a much wiser man. That just seems wrong to me.

    I think the mandated equivalence of each and every vote, allied with the whole 'short term' nature of the democratic cycle as it is currently implemented, severely hobbles our democracies. I mean, in the USA they vote every two years for the lower house of congress, don't they? That boggles my mind. How does anything get DONE? As soon as a congressman is voted in and he's had a bit of a break ... he'll be working on the next campaign.

    I think the basic nature of current Western democracies precludes us from medium- or long-term planning for the future, and that's bad. Reacting to crises is not the best way to govern.

    Another science fiction allusion ... maybe Asimov's stories of mankind being governed/managed by the super-computer 'Brainiac' wasn't that bad an idea after all? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. >Too many voters in our democracies are idiots or vote only for their own personal short-term gain.

    In the recent Japanese elections, I've asked over a dozen students whether they agree with the policy of giving US$270 a month to families for each under-15 child, and I got several responses along the lines of "I don't have any children, so I don't support it." (smacks forehead)

    >It sort of amazes me to think that, when I was young and uninformed, my vote was in every way the equal of the vote of a law or economics professor. That my vote could 'cancel out' that of a much wiser man. That just seems wrong to me.

    And now, there is some moron somewhere whose vote will cancel out yours! ;-) The wheel turns... No, the U.S. Founders understood that, but they thought it was best anyway. I think the quote was attributed to Churchill, "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others." I have actually thought about the idea of requiring voters to pass a 'current events knowledge' test to be allowed to vote (or at least, allowed to register), but while it would prevent uninformed voting, it wouldn't prevent self-interested voting, which is at least as bad. Alas, there's no test for wisdom.

    >I mean, in the USA they vote every two years for the lower house of congress, don't they? That boggles my mind. How does anything get DONE? As soon as a congressman is voted in and he's had a bit of a break ... he'll be working on the next campaign.

    Indeed, this has been recognized as a problem in America for quite a while, especially now that to get elected you need big $$ for campaign commercials, the chase for money never ends. The more often you vote, the more the politicians have to do what they think the people want. In a way, I wouldn't mind seeing two years added to each term: reps would get 4 years, senators 8, presidents 6. I wonder if that would change much, and would it be for the better or worse.

    >I think the basic nature of current Western democracies precludes us from medium- or long-term planning for the future, and that's bad. Reacting to crises is not the best way to govern.

    True, but again, that's our fault. If we voted for those who were good at long-term planning, that's what we'd get. The beauty and tragedy of democracy: we get what we deserve.

    >Another science fiction allusion ... maybe Asimov's stories of mankind being governed/managed by the super-computer 'Brainiac' wasn't that bad an idea after all? ;-)

    No, I wouldn't take it, even if the alternative was us stumbling around like morons. The more you take away people's ability to make choices, even bad ones, the less they have a chance to learn. We'll get there, eventually. I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > I have actually thought about the idea of requiring voters to pass a 'current events knowledge' test to be allowed to vote (or at least, allowed to register), but while it would prevent uninformed voting, it wouldn't prevent self-interested voting, which is at least as bad. Alas, there's no test for wisdom.

    I hate to keep bringing up Heinlein ... sadly, I never did any civics classes, even in Junior High School, so I'm afraid I expose my ignorance on matters of the 'real' world in discussions like these. Heinlein (obviously) had a wheelbarrow to push, and I've read that 'Starship Troopers' - one of his classics, won a Hugo I think - is considered by some/many to describe a 'fascist' society.

    Still, as a young lad, I couldn't help but be impressed by some of the ideas. A lot of pontificating in the book on matters of citizenship and so forth.

    (Actually, come to think of it, your books might share that in common with some of Heinlein's - philosophising on how (a perfect) society should work, things like that.)

    Anyway, in Starship Troopers the futuristic society there allows only 'citizens' to vote ... and one becomes a 'citizen' only by voluntarily electing to join the armed services. Rats, I wish I had the book at hand to look for the crucial page in the protagonist's high school "History and Moral Philosophy" class where they cover how and why their society evolved from the 'horrors' of that of the 20th century western world ... I think the core idea was that a 'citizen' had proven that he put his society first, ahead of his own self interest.

    So that was Heinlein's solution for your 'test of wisdom'.

    > In a way, I wouldn't mind seeing two years added to each term: reps would get 4 years, senators 8, presidents 6. I wonder if that would change much, and would it be for the better or worse.

    In Australia our lower house has a term of three years, the upper six. But the problem is, there are various ways that the government can call an election early ... often when the polls say they're on an upswing in popularity. The idea of *fixed* terms has often been mooted. Are they fixed in the USA?

    The UK has 4-year terms for their lower house ... don't know if they're doing better than us. :-)

    ReplyDelete