Okay, here goes…
First of all, I don’t support any “exam” notion for selecting individuals, but I do see the value in exams for propositions. For what it’s worth, this is also something that I would require of Congress members before they vote on legislation.
I came to this line of thinking trying to suss out the propositions on the ballot both this and last year. Last year, I did some serious research about California’s Prop 8, and found that most (though not all) of the proponents’ claims were factually wrong (and/or) misleading. I’m not talking about abstract notions of homosexuality being “good” or “bad.” I’m talking about messages like “They’re going to be teaching homosexuality to children in our public schools.” I have no doubt that people voted based on the misinformation that Prop 8 opponents did a piss-poor job at debunking. Indeed, it was only until it went to trial that those claims were found to be laughably false. Rigorous examination of fact and evidence can have that effect.
This year, there were a bunch of ballot initiatives that has to with state budgets and districting that I have a poor grasp of, especially the ramifications of passing such measures. I’d be voting with my “gut,” swayed by pre-existing political biases and how well that proposition’s proponents’ and opponents’ ad teams did their job. Yet my vote on those measures would count the same as (and possibly negate) those of an expert in state budgeting.
Then I thought about my own (admittedly narrow) areas of expertise, which I’ve spent my life (and money for education) learning. How would I like it if my expertise was brushed aside for someone who had no background in the matter and went with his or her “gut”? (Actually this happens all the time, but fortunately, bad decisions in my realm don’t impact the well-being of the nation.)
Detractors will say that this reeks of an (1) elitist society and is (2) wholly undemocratic.
Regarding (1), I say “elitist” is just a pejorative for “experts.” And I ask any of these anti-elitists whether they would trust their triple-bypass surgery to a Harvard University summa cum laude or their best friend in the whole wide world. Moreover, I think at the heart of the matter is simply a huge bruise to the ego that “my feelings” don’t count the same as anyone’s else. That, and/or the suspicion that the “elite” are a cabal that seek only to further political agendas. To which I ask, even if that happened, how is that any different than the situation we now live under?
Which brings me to (2): who is to say that while a process doesn’t represent the democratic ideal (keeping in mind we don’t live in a pure democracy), that the experts wouldn’t be seeking a result that benefits the people? I sure as hell aren’t gay and whether Prop 8 passed or not did not affect me one iota. But the systematic maligning of homosexuals offended me as a human and as an American.
Facts do not change depending on what political party you belong to; so long as the exam stuck to the facts — not the interpretation and extrapolation of those facts — we could at least disembark from an educated starting point.
I’m perhaps getting a little fed up with a trend of anti-intellectualism that I’ve been experiencing more frequently lately. And the Internet’s ability to promulgate information is dwarfed only by it’s ability to promulgate misinformation.
Okay, I’m out of steam. Your turn: tear me a new one.