Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study says(news.vice.com)
news.vice.com
Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study says
https://news.vice.com/article/washingtons-governing-elites-think-were-all-morons-a-new-study-says
23 コメント
Not only are they mediocre in skill, but studies suggest politicians spend up to 60% of their time raising donations. That means they're developing skills in raising money, not designing legislation that benefits their constituency.
Further, expertise comes not just from the amount of time you spend on something but how much feedback you receive and how you respond to that feedback. Few, if any, legislators will measure the economic or social impact of their bills 1-5 years after it's enacted.
What you end up with is a lot of people who are convinced they're doing a whole lot of good, when in fact they're more or less pushing paper and making their donors happy.
Further, expertise comes not just from the amount of time you spend on something but how much feedback you receive and how you respond to that feedback. Few, if any, legislators will measure the economic or social impact of their bills 1-5 years after it's enacted.
What you end up with is a lot of people who are convinced they're doing a whole lot of good, when in fact they're more or less pushing paper and making their donors happy.
I lived in DC for 15 years, some of that contracting for federal agencies. This attitude is evident in nearly every interaction with gov't people, on the clock or not.
You couldn't tell from my comment history here, but I used to be a believer in the power of gov't to solve problems. Up-close observation taught me the error of my ways.
You couldn't tell from my comment history here, but I used to be a believer in the power of gov't to solve problems. Up-close observation taught me the error of my ways.
It's tempting to define moron as the opposite of genius or domain expert. As very few people are geniuses or domain experts for any chosen domain, it may sometimes appear that everyone is a moron.
The reality is that the observer is just as limited as the 'fools' he is observing. He just doesn't realise that, or perhaps, cannot accept it.
It's especially hard for people to accept that when they feel their position and status in life depends on the grandiloquence and success of their visions, vs, say, high quality widgets made. As beltway bureaucrats rarely produce tangible things except laws, they are very susceptible to thinking that because they have a job in a position of power, they must ipso-facto be qualified to wield that power, and as they are rarely domain experts in anything technical or specific, that qualification must be their generally superior intellect.
It's not just America that has this problem. Recent events in the EU show the problem there may be dramatically worse.
The reality is that the observer is just as limited as the 'fools' he is observing. He just doesn't realise that, or perhaps, cannot accept it.
It's especially hard for people to accept that when they feel their position and status in life depends on the grandiloquence and success of their visions, vs, say, high quality widgets made. As beltway bureaucrats rarely produce tangible things except laws, they are very susceptible to thinking that because they have a job in a position of power, they must ipso-facto be qualified to wield that power, and as they are rarely domain experts in anything technical or specific, that qualification must be their generally superior intellect.
It's not just America that has this problem. Recent events in the EU show the problem there may be dramatically worse.
I've read that when the general public is surveyed on various issues, they turn out to be generally ill-informed. For instance, they think that foreign aid is ten times higher than it is, or that the rich have a far lower proportion of the national wealth than they do.
That's true. But it does not follow that those who have accurate information, but live lives that are very different and disconnected from the average person's, are able to make good decisions for the average person.
That's a good point.
How did America wind up with a "political ruling class" who "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care"? Wasn't America the place you went to leave that kind of arrogant nonsense behind?
I bought the book and read it last night.
Basically it blames the New Deal and the massive expansion of Congressional ambition that accompanied it. Such vast programs of regulation meant it became infeasible for Congress to write the laws entirely by itself, so it created lots of regulators and agencies to do so for it, and then delegated lots of power without much in the way of accountability.
Basically it blames the New Deal and the massive expansion of Congressional ambition that accompanied it. Such vast programs of regulation meant it became infeasible for Congress to write the laws entirely by itself, so it created lots of regulators and agencies to do so for it, and then delegated lots of power without much in the way of accountability.
It's sort of the same reason I keep giving for why I like Rust over other languages - sufficient vigilance is very difficult for humans to maintain, and so unexpected catastrophes happen.
I'm optimistic that there are technological solutions for this particular crisis, although I admit I don't know what they will be.
I'm optimistic that there are technological solutions for this particular crisis, although I admit I don't know what they will be.
As a patriotic American, I'm proud to stand up and say I love the freedoms we used to have!
If you saw the types of people that try to position themselves around politicians, you would think this about everyone too.
Rich donors are by and large not buying political favors, they're trying to buy social status. They idolize these politicians and want to impress their social circle by shaking their hands. It's truly pathetic. They are the kids who got picked last in gym class and are still insecure about it. They would probably take a bullet for the chance to host a fundraiser.
It's like how many cops deal with lawbreakers and miscreants all day, and develop a negative disposition towards the rest of the population, subconsciously thinking that their sample reflects the population at large.
Also, people are voting for Trump. In light of that, it takes extreme optimism and generosity to think that millions of voters are anything more than hopeless morons.
Rich donors are by and large not buying political favors, they're trying to buy social status. They idolize these politicians and want to impress their social circle by shaking their hands. It's truly pathetic. They are the kids who got picked last in gym class and are still insecure about it. They would probably take a bullet for the chance to host a fundraiser.
It's like how many cops deal with lawbreakers and miscreants all day, and develop a negative disposition towards the rest of the population, subconsciously thinking that their sample reflects the population at large.
Also, people are voting for Trump. In light of that, it takes extreme optimism and generosity to think that millions of voters are anything more than hopeless morons.
The study's authors hardly sound like disinterested academics. They sound a lot more like people trying to sell a book that capitalizes on a political trend.
I don't understand your comment.
I have never met a "disinterested academic". To the contrary, most academics are quite interested and many are enthusiastic about their area of study.
Many are also involved in outreach, to get others interested in their research topic. This includes researchers who write and sell books meant for the general public, and, yes, to affect policy.
I have never met a "disinterested academic". To the contrary, most academics are quite interested and many are enthusiastic about their area of study.
Many are also involved in outreach, to get others interested in their research topic. This includes researchers who write and sell books meant for the general public, and, yes, to affect policy.
"Disinterested" in this context refers to self-interest, such as a financial interest in the outcome, as opposed to an interest in the truth. The language used by the author in the interview seemed exaggerated, and aimed at taking advantage of the prevailing anti-government populism, rather than shedding any real light on it.
We have a republican form of government here in the US, rather than a direct democracy. Of course subject-matter experts in government are going to say that they shouldn't rely on the judgment of the public at large. That's a far cry from calling them morons.
We have a republican form of government here in the US, rather than a direct democracy. Of course subject-matter experts in government are going to say that they shouldn't rely on the judgment of the public at large. That's a far cry from calling them morons.
Is your objection that the results were published in a book, where the authors can make some money from it?
If so, do you not realize that many or even most academics publish a book, with the potential to earn royalties? Usually it's not enough to justify the time, in that other options, like consulting on the side, are more profitable. Profit is low on the list of why to write a book. Prestige in the academic world is higher. A book full of unsubstantiated claptrap is less likely to lead to long-term career advancement.
Perhaps the most famous policy-related book from an academic in the last few years is Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." It has had millions of sales. Do you consider him "disinterested" as a result?
Also, which language do you refer to? Is it:
> The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told."
Or is it:
> If the public resists, Ginsberg told VICE News, then bureaucrats "nudge people into obedience."
Those are the only two quotes by an author of the report.
The first appears to be backed by survey results. Quoting the publisher's overview:
> They found a significant chasm between what official Washington assumes they know about average Americans and the actual opinions and attitudes of American citizens. Even in such basic areas as life circumstances (e.g., income levels, employment, racial makeup) the surveys revealed surprising inaccuracies. And when it comes to policy issues–on such crucial issues as defense, crime, social security, welfare, public education, and the environment–officials’ perceptions of the public’s knowledge and positions are often wide of the mark. Compounding this ignorance is a pervasive attitude of smug dismissiveness toward the citizenry and little sense of accountability. As a result, bureaucrats tend to follow their own preferences without much reference to the opinions of the public.
In addition, the recommended solution is not direct democracy, as you somehow conclude. That is, the blurb continues:
> The authors conclude with recommendations to narrow the gap between official perceptions of the American public and the actual facts. These include shorter terms, rotation from the Washington beltway to local offices, compulsory training in the responsibilities of public office, and better civic education for ordinary citizens in the realities of government and politics.
The second quote is unsurprising. Nudge theory is popular with some politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory describes it as "a concept ... to try to achieve non-forced compliance", and points to use by government:
> Most recently, the political machinery of both President Barack Obama in the United States and Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK have sought to employ Nudge Theory to advance their respective domestic policy goals.
I therefore disagree with the justification for your objection.
If so, do you not realize that many or even most academics publish a book, with the potential to earn royalties? Usually it's not enough to justify the time, in that other options, like consulting on the side, are more profitable. Profit is low on the list of why to write a book. Prestige in the academic world is higher. A book full of unsubstantiated claptrap is less likely to lead to long-term career advancement.
Perhaps the most famous policy-related book from an academic in the last few years is Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." It has had millions of sales. Do you consider him "disinterested" as a result?
Also, which language do you refer to? Is it:
> The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told."
Or is it:
> If the public resists, Ginsberg told VICE News, then bureaucrats "nudge people into obedience."
Those are the only two quotes by an author of the report.
The first appears to be backed by survey results. Quoting the publisher's overview:
> They found a significant chasm between what official Washington assumes they know about average Americans and the actual opinions and attitudes of American citizens. Even in such basic areas as life circumstances (e.g., income levels, employment, racial makeup) the surveys revealed surprising inaccuracies. And when it comes to policy issues–on such crucial issues as defense, crime, social security, welfare, public education, and the environment–officials’ perceptions of the public’s knowledge and positions are often wide of the mark. Compounding this ignorance is a pervasive attitude of smug dismissiveness toward the citizenry and little sense of accountability. As a result, bureaucrats tend to follow their own preferences without much reference to the opinions of the public.
In addition, the recommended solution is not direct democracy, as you somehow conclude. That is, the blurb continues:
> The authors conclude with recommendations to narrow the gap between official perceptions of the American public and the actual facts. These include shorter terms, rotation from the Washington beltway to local offices, compulsory training in the responsibilities of public office, and better civic education for ordinary citizens in the realities of government and politics.
The second quote is unsurprising. Nudge theory is popular with some politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory describes it as "a concept ... to try to achieve non-forced compliance", and points to use by government:
> Most recently, the political machinery of both President Barack Obama in the United States and Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK have sought to employ Nudge Theory to advance their respective domestic policy goals.
I therefore disagree with the justification for your objection.
Is your objection that the results were published in a book, where the authors can make some money from it?
No. My objection is based on the tone of the author's remarks (and yes, those are the quotes), in particular the use of inflammatory language, and the lack of acknowledgment of the obvious fact that bureaucrats are expected to value their own opinion above the general population, just as professors are expected to value their opinion over laymen. How many of the survey subjects do you think would agree with Ginsberg's assessment that they really think Americans are "stupid"?
I disagree with your rationalization of Ginsberg's remarks and find them ill-informed and unsupported, but for the record, that doesn't mean I think you're stupid.
No. My objection is based on the tone of the author's remarks (and yes, those are the quotes), in particular the use of inflammatory language, and the lack of acknowledgment of the obvious fact that bureaucrats are expected to value their own opinion above the general population, just as professors are expected to value their opinion over laymen. How many of the survey subjects do you think would agree with Ginsberg's assessment that they really think Americans are "stupid"?
I disagree with your rationalization of Ginsberg's remarks and find them ill-informed and unsupported, but for the record, that doesn't mean I think you're stupid.
Which takes me back to the question of what you mean by "disinterested academic". You implied it meant there was a monetary conflict of interest, but now you imply that it's something to do with tone?
No. Two different topics, but one is related to the other. If a researcher has a financial interest in the outcome of a study (such as a book for sale), that's suspect but not necessarily disqualifying. What makes it disqualifying in this case is that the inflammatory language so transparently plays into the current wave of political populism in order to sell more books. Since you bring up Piketty, contrast his remarks about his research to Ginsberg's: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/qa-thomas-piket.... Does Piketty demonize the wealthy the way Ginsberg demonizes his subjects? Had Ginsberg been trying to promote Piketty's book, he would've peppered the interview with phrases like "greedy fat cats stealing from the poor".
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
-- (Not really said by) Winston Churchill
-- (Not really said by) Winston Churchill
Are you an above-average voter? If so, how far above average? Where is the cutoff for acceptability?
Actually I think most people on HN are not average voters.
At least the feeling is mutual.
If your metric of status or intelligence is doing the least amount of work for the most payoff, then government probably is the best deal around. So I don't think that government officials necessarily think of us as morons, but more like rubes who are easily seduced by idealistic rhetoric. If you are completely cynical and just want to "get yours", then working for government is indeed a smart choice.