Yesterday, I read a small article in the paper concerning remarks made by Missouri Congressman and U.S. Senate Candidate Todd Akin, where he used the phrase “legitimate rape” as if there exists some form of rape that is legal. In the television interview, the Congressman went on to explain his belief that it is rare for a woman to become pregnant during the act of rape because “the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.”
I was stunned. I sat down and wrote a few pages of my thoughts to share in this blog, even though I was tired and had hoped to get some rest. Often, small stories like this one get overlooked, and I felt that this one deserved a bit more examination, but I saved it for review before I planned to post it today. This morning, I see that the story wasn’t overlooked. In fact, a firestorm of indignation is rightfully spreading. Professional medical organizations came out with information that refuted his observation. His own party is now pulling support from the man and distancing themselves. Here’s a little hint for any would-be Republican Senator: when Karl Rove’s super-pac thinks you are too far out to support, it’s time to find a new party. Perhaps something with nice brown shirts and funny little armbands.
One of the facts I came across regarding Congressman Akin is that he holds a seat on the Congressional Science Committee, despite a rather obvious disregard of scientific facts on his part. I find this disturbing. But when you think about it, how many decisions do our elected representatives have to vote on where they have little or no personal knowledge of the subject matter? Few even make enough time to review the entire text of a law that they vote on. These things disturbs me even more.
I have often written about the need for voters to better educate themselves in order to make well-informed decisions with their votes. But how are we to know about the intellectual acuity of the people we are voting into or out of office? We elect people to make informed decisions about our economy without knowing if they even have the slightest idea of the difference between microeconomics (the way a household functions) and macroeconomics (the way that a government functions). What seems intuitive to us on a personal level makes no sense at the government level unless you understand the difference.
While I like the idea of a secret ballot, I think there should be better disclosure of the positions of those who would have our votes. But I think we need more than that. Wouldn’t it be nice if we had some kind of standardized test that would tell us if the person we’re voting for is a moron or a bit smarter than the rest of us? I don’t make decisions based on thirty-second sound bites and you shouldn’t either. I want quantifiable facts, whenever possible.
In some cases we have information provided that we seldom use. Local bar associations typically provide ratings for the candidates for judge. What we don’t see are such candidates saying something like: “While I barely squeaked by law school taking night classes, then practiced corporate law for a few years, I am now running for the position of Family Court Judge, so that I can make decisions in areas that I have little or no experience.” But wouldn’t you want to know if your County Auditor or Treasurer has never taken a course in accounting? My county has rather stringent requirements for the position of County Engineer, including a requirement for a degree in engineering as well as knowledge of surveying. That makes sense. Shouldn’t we have the same kind of standard for the folks that we choose to run our economy?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an elitist. I know a few people who are very well informed with only a modest level of formal schooling. Just because someone has a good education, doesn’t make him or her smarter. Personally, I had a great education in financial matters and still ended up making poor choices about money. The two men who would lead our country as President both have law degrees, an admirable and relatively difficult achievement. The Republican candidate also has an MBA, which you would think would be a really good thing until one recalls that the last President with an MBA left the economy in a shambles from which we are still trying to recover.
Of course the devil is in the details, and trying to develop a standardized test to measure intelligence is fraught with peril. Cultural and social issues arise, and some people are just better at taking standardized tests than others. But I think it would be wonderful if a candidate came out with a list of important issues and then gave his or her opinion of each one so we could make better decisions about them. For instance, they could say, “On the subject of abortion, while I do not personally favor it, I believe that such a choice should remain between the individual and her doctor.” Or, “Regarding abortion, I oppose it no matter what the circumstance, even rape, because if it is a ‘legitimate rape’ a female’s body has ways to shut that thing down.”
Suppose a candidate said: “With respect to the economy, I favor a government that would borrow money at relatively low rates and fund projects that would improve our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, and other aspects of our basic infrastructure. In doing so it is my belief that the jobs created by such an action would strengthen our economy, and allow for rapid repayment of the loan.” Would you be more likely to vote for the opponent that said the following? “On the subject of our economy, I believe that we cannot spend any money that we don’t have right now. Even if our nation’s infrastructure crumbles and we become a nation of dirt roads for the poor and superhighway toll roads for the rich, we should let nature take its course.” Such full disclosure might be enlightening, but I doubt it will ever happen.
I would like to see a candidate come out and say something like this: “My name is Jane Candidate. I have an undergraduate degree from XYZ college in the field of economics and a law degree from ABC university, where I graduated 15th in a class of 200. My IQ has been tested by various standardized tests in the 115-125 range. My views on important issues facing our nation are as follows…” Even if you didn’t agree with her positions, you might have a great deal more respect for such a candidate. We never see such honesty, and that’s a shame.
So what are we left with? We need to become better informed on the issues and how our candidates react to these issues in order to become better citizens. We need to create more educational opportunities for everyone’s children so that the next generation can become even better citizens and live in a better world. We need to ask the hard questions, and demand answers that make sense. But we won’t, because it requires too much effort. Instead we will allow emotional manipulation to take place through short, uninformative TV commercials, make our decisions in a few seconds, and then try to get on with our lives as best we can.
But every so often, we are presented with useful information in a raw form, such as when a candidate for high office uses an unfortunate oxymoron like “legitimate rape.” Don’t squander these precious opportunities. Vote these idiots out of office now.
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”
~Plato
“The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal - that you can gather votes like box tops - is... the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.”
~Adlai Stevenson
No comments:
Post a Comment