A Little Knowledge

We've all heard the cliche and we never apply it to ourselves. Cliches are viewed as a shorthand for describing the other guy or as a misunderstanding by the other guy of what we mean. The cliche du jour is "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

It can walk hand-in-hand with the one about "we don't know what we don't know." We all are experts, particularly when it comes to griping about government. We experience deep frustration with "the system" and fall quickly into the pattern of attributing evil motives and bad behavior to "them" while knowing in our hearts that we are pure and righteous.

I had some interesting discussions the last couple of days over at Roberta X's place. It all started with her lamentations over the Indiana primary election last week. She was frustrated and felt deprived by the law from exercising her franchise. Take a look at the problem and the discussion that ensued:

The Issue of Honesty and Voting

I was confused. I've taught my classes about primaries and the more convoluted caucus system in a couple of states for about fifteen years. I'd never heard of such a restriction. How could a state have any idea regarding your performance in the last general election? Who could possibly enact such a restriction?

I took some time to find out what sort of primary Indiana has. Turns out to be an "open" one which means simply that you aren't declared in a party in the registration system. Simply walk in on primary day and tell the election judge which party ballot you wish to complete. Previous commitments are irrelevant.

The persistence of embedded incorrect information seemed pretty strange, but upon further consideration I think we all encounter it on a daily basis. We are indoctrinated everywhere we turn with sound-bites and innuendo. We should question, probe, confirm and verify but we don't. We grab for that which props up our prejudice and we deny the items that conflict with our preconceived notions.

Roberta X came back to the topic two days later and we got to the real meaning of the two party system in America. Is there a real difference any more? That is a much deeper question:

Where Are the Foundations?

I sympathize with her disgust at what we see in Washington. The daily reporting affirms another cliche, the one about "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They have abandoned principles and seem totally in the thrall of the powerful blocs which keep them in office.

But, even there, the comments again display our tendency to let a little bit of knowledge confuse what really is foundational. I note particularly that one poster recalls that the acknowledged founder of the Democratic Party is Thomas Jefferson, and the Republican Party is Abraham Lincoln.

That is put forth to confound my assertion that the essential of conservatism is individual responsibility and free markets while the core of liberalism is governmental solutions and market regulation. I stand by my statements.

Jefferson, it must be recalled was the leader of the Anti-Federalists. He opposed the strong central government proposals of Hamilton. His party became the Democratic-Republicans, not the Democrats. They were staunch believers in state's rights and the virtues of agrarianism rather than urbanization. They were principally slave-holders and the southern states. They evolved into the "Solid South" of Democrats which led us to the Confederacy and segregationist Democrats of reconstruction. Only after FDR and the New Deal did we see the focus shift to welfare and government solution, and only after LBJ's Great Society did we see the incorporation of ethnic minorities. Today's Democrats are hardly examples of Jeffersonians.

Lincoln's party was an evolution as well, but one that probably tracks back to Hamilton's belief in a strong union. But it doesn't embrace, either with Hamilton or with Lincoln, a belief in government centralization as the best cure for social ills.

The present Congressional incumbents aren't ideologically pure. In large instance they aren't even ideologically consistent. That is why we participate in primary elections. We should be seeking a return to the principles we believe in. We won't find total alignment with our own preferences. We won't find lock-stop unanimity in our candidates. We can't expect a foundational ideology such as individualism versus collectivism to translate directly into our preference on particular issues like immigration, abortion, religion, gun control, taxes, finance, the environment, or toothpaste flavor.

Our problem is that we've got to stop grabbing at what Joe at the bar said he thinks he heard from a guy down at work about this politician or that one. We've got to do our homework, learn the basics, read our history and get in the game.

Failure to get into that game before the game is over is going to cost us dearly.