There’s this online article that caught my attention. It is entitled “People Aren’t Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish,
After reading the article’s title, my initial reaction was: ‘Really?!!!’
Then I asked: ‘Is it the people who aren’t smart enough, or these alleged scientists?’
I believe that the so-called scientists’ statement is invalid. What is democracy in the first place? Did these alleged scientists from reputable universities ever exert their best efforts to investigate and understand the proper concept of ‘democracy’? How did they use the term democracy? Did they simply use the standard dictionary definition of this political term and then used it for their so-called studies?
The article states:
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas. For example, if people lack expertise on tax reform, it is very difficult for them to identify the candidates who are actual experts. They simply lack the mental tools needed to make meaningful judgments.
So their alleged research shows that “incompetent people are inherent unable” to spot the “competence of other people, or the quality of those people’s ideas”.
Wait! Are they referring to the Democrats and Liberals? Unfortunately, these politically naive and clueless liberals and Democrats are diploma-toting morons. They believe they’re smart and good and competent simply because they have an Ivy League or elite diploma. Really, that’s how these diploma-toting liberals and leftists gauge competence!
I posted the following comment on the online article:
Those scientists are either leftists or closet leftists. In fact, they are statist-elitists who think they know better than the common people. The fact is, these clueless scientists are not smart enough to know the proper concept (and evil) of democracy. If we’re talking about the classical- or even the contemporary definition of ‘democracy’, this term simply means ‘mob rule’ or majority rule. Karl Marx was right, for once, in saying that democracy is the road to socialism.
Oh yes! Democracy simply means “mob rule”! Whatever the majority wills or decides becomes the law.
Someone wrote in Los Angeles Times the following quotation, which is usually misattributed to Benjamin Franklin on the Internet: “Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”
The first critics or enemies of Democracy were the Founding Fathers of the United States who clearly understood the many evils of this social system first introduced and implemented in ancient Greece.
John Adams, in his letter to John Taylor on 15 April 1814, wrote:
“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
Alexander Hamilton also made the following remarks about democracy:
“We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”
“It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.” From his speech in New York, urging ratification of the U.S. Constitution (1788-06-21)
Now I don’t understand why do these alleged modern-day scientists, who are supposed to be more ‘competent’ and more discerning than the common people they seek to educate, fall for the lies of democracy. The most feasible answer is: it’s because of ideology. That’s why I said above that these alleged scientists must be avowed or closet leftists or statists to be too clueless, naive and ignorant of fundamental political and social issues.
Part of the article also states:
“Mato Nagel, a sociologist in Germany, recently implemented Dunning and Kruger’s theories by computer-simulating a democratic election. In his mathematical model of the election, he assumed that voters’ own leadership skills were distributed on a bell curve — some were really good leaders, some, really bad, but most were mediocre — and that each voter was incapable of recognizing the leadership skills of a political candidate as being better than his or her own. When such an election was simulated, candidates whose leadership skills were only slightly better than average always won.”
Here I have to comment on the alleged scientist’s methodology.
I think there’s something very, very wrong with the alleged social scientist’s methodology. Though I’m not a professional researcher, I strongly believe that the objectivity, accuracy and success of a scientific study depends upon the unimpeachability and accuracy of its methodology. What is clear is that it is not explained how these alleged scientists formulated their methodology (whether it is scientifically flawed or not.)
In formulating their methodology, they should have dealt with such questions as:
- What constitutes good political leadership? a) Does good leadership mean welfare leadership? b) Does good leadership demand that leaders should act or serve like Niccolo Machiavelli’s the “Prince”? c) Does good leadership mean the government must guarantee ‘social justice’ or redistributive justice in order to help the poor or the least advantage?
- What makes a good leader? a) Does a leader need to be like Obama who seeks to redistribute wealth? b) Should a leader possess altruistic qualities? c) Should a good leader redistribute wealth?
- Is there any relation between political leadership and the size of government?a) Does good political leadership require a government big enough to provide people’s needs and services? Does good political leadership require government intervention into people’s private lives in order to serve and guarantee social justice? Does good political leadership demand that government play a role in the economy?
If the answer to all these questions is “YES”- and I hypothesize or theorize that that’s how these alleged social scientists view “good political leadership”- then I say, “the people” don’t deserve to be called “not smart enough”; it’s these alleged scientists who are NOT smart enough to understand what makes economic and political progress possible.