How smart are the American people, myself included, or any electorate for that matter? By smart, I mean the tendency to know at least a few critical things. Here’s a head-scratcher to be leveled at a common homebody: Do you believe that the value (price) of a product is based on the labor that went into it? I cringe at the likely answer of “yes” by far too many. That little postulate is the pebble that starts an avalanche. From “yes” we get to “Workers of the world unite!”; the dictatorship of the proletariat; the interminable whining about systemic oppression with the “oppressed” filled by any identity outside of white male; a gulag to be populated with anyone who can’t play along; a secret police to prop up the heinous political deformity; and influential goofs talking economics and not knowing it.
Imagine the devastation to the republic if Democratic Party politicians discovered the popularity of “yes”. “Shhhhhhhh!” before they find out.
For the record, the answer in the affirmative is an absurdity. As proof, look at all the unsold crafts at a flea market. A lot of effort – labor – went into the stuff but a good chunk of it nobody wanted. It’s inventory-reduction time for our weekend merchant. Clearance sales mean price reductions. See, prices are determined by the valuations of buyers and not the producer’s sweat equity.
I have the same concern about the public’s smartness when Rasmussen came out with its recent survey on MLB’s abandonment of Atlanta due to Georgia’s election law. 40% called it a “good idea” and 46% labeled it a “bad idea”. 60% of Democrats liked MLB’s political navel-gazing. No push questions were part of the survey to plumb the depths of respondents’ knowledge on the issue, like the contents of the Georgia law. (see the poll here)
Is the public any better informed on the election law in question than Commissioner Robert Manfred and the rest of MLB, Inc.? Other than knowing that MLB’s action took place, is there anything more rattling around in the heads of the 40%, or 60% of Democrats? I’m of a mind to doubt it. We need no more confirmation of Churchill’s insight when he said in the House of Commons in 1947 that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried.”
Yet, as per Churchill in his qualifier, an acceptance of popular ignorance is better than turning over decision-making to a clique of self-anointed demi-gods operating as bureaucratic “experts”. Give me the halfwit voter over the rule of a powerful commissariat with dreams of grandeur. At least with the halfwit, I’ve got a 50% chance of them getting it right. If not, there’s always the next time. For the demi-gods, it’s likely to be one person/one vote/one time in a Constitution that is interpreted out of existence.
What would be waiting for us in rule by a clique? The old USSR lights the way. The class of “experts” to manage the Soviet economy were ensconced in Gosplan, the government planning agency. The Soviets were great at producing city-busting nuclear ICBM’s but couldn’t manage sufficient quantities of tooth paste, toilet paper, et al. It’s great for brinksmanship but rather disappointing if forced to use old copies of Izvestiya after performing one of life’s necessities.
I hope that our citizens are never polled on this question: Should we be ruled by experts? Personally, uncontrollable shutters would return if the expected large numbers of yesses are turned into successful Democrat campaign slogans. Somehow, their popular “save our democracy” chant would quickly acquire a hollow ring, and the Democrats’ “managed decline”, once reserved for fossil fuels, would have a much broader application, with the exception of a few huge public monoliths like bullet trains to nowhere.
RogerG