I have often written about the ignorance that has resulted from decades of pathetic, dumbed-down parenting and schooling, and, sadly, there's no shortage of material on this subject.
There is often a profound difference between morality and legality, and, if this were a just world, a good percentage of the American Left would be tried for treason. If that seems a radical statement, I ask you: What price should be paid for sowing the seeds of your nation's destruction? What should be the punishment for creating millions of people so ignorant, so effete, so corrupted in judgment that they are unable to sustain a free republic, resist enemies foreign and domestic, and perpetuate their culture? I'll leave that to you to decide and just talk a bit about the state of the electorate.
I have often written about the ignorance that has resulted from decades of pathetic, dumbed-down parenting and schooling, and, sadly, there's no shortage of material on this subject. In fact, you could probably read three large volumes on it and not know all Americans don't know about what they should know. However, one short article recently written by economics professor and columnist Dr. Walter Williams perhaps tells us all we need to know. It is called "Ignorance reigns supreme" and relates the findings of a national survey measuring people's knowledge of civics titled "Our Fading Heritage: Americans Fail a Basic Test on Their History and Institutions." Its findings are staggering, although not at all surprising to me. For starters, 71 percent of Americans surveyed failed the test, and the average score on it was 49 percent. As for some details, Williams tells us (some of the following information he gleaned from sources other than the survey):
Only 27 percent know the Bill of Rights expressly prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States . . . 25 percent [of college seniors] did not know that Columbus landed in the Western Hemisphere before the year 1500; 42 percent could not place the Civil War in the correct half-century; and 31 percent thought Reconstruction came after World War II . . . 50 percent of whites and more than 80 percent of blacks couldn't state in writing the argument made in a newspaper column; 56 percent could not calculate the right tip . . . 98 percent could identify rap artist Snoop Dogg and Beavis and Butt-Head, but only 34 percent knew George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown.
Williams then opines:
With limited thinking abilities and knowledge of our heritage, we Americans set ourselves up as easy prey for charlatans, hustlers and quacks [i.e., that is, at least 80 percent of our politicians]. If we don't know the constitutional limits placed on Congress and the White House, politicians can do just about anything they wish to control our lives, from deciding what kind of light bulbs we can use to whether the government can take over our health care system or bailout failing businesses. We just think Congress can do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.
Without a doubt. To put it differently, how can we protect our rights as Americans if we don't understand civics and the Constitution and thus cannot know what those rights are? And how can we preserve our culture and traditions – and know what we're relinquishing by not doing so and the consequences of this sin of omission – if we don't know what they are? Rhetorical questions both.
Most distressingly, the civics survey found that almost 25 percent of us believe that Congress shares its foreign policy powers with the United Nations. If Americans believe such nonsense, can we expect them to vigorously oppose efforts to move us closer to one-world government? If people already believe that a certain degree of our sovereignty is gone, then all the internationalists need do is make it official; they will be able to relinquish precisely that degree of sovereignty without opposition from those ignorant citizens.
Yet, despite this abject ignorance, we still have get-out-the-dopes drives. What percent of the electorate should actually vote? Well, take the 71 percent that failed the civics test and subtract it from the total, and you'll have the answer.
Of course, though, fewer and fewer Americans can make that calculation all the time.
"What percent of the electorate should actually vote?"
This sounds like you have recently read and agree with Plato. But, seriously, it is a good question. I tend to think that it is more a condition of technology. That includes books and newspapers being replaced by TV and the Internet. Even the Internet text being quickly replaced by graphics and video. It would be interesting to look back over the last 500 years to see how people reacted to moving off farms into towns where reading materials were more available, then when books became more available, the effects of radio, TV, computers, cell phones, text messaging, and pod casts. I expect the hockey stick curve would be evident, with a drop off in the last 15 years. Certainly, the idea of the next generation being dumber than the last has been around for some time, but the question now is "where are we going? Genetically we are equal to the people of Plato's time. Maybe your question will be valid in the future and we will need a test prior to voting. Who would vote for such a thing though?
If the qualifications for president are minimally described in the Constitution, why should there be a higher standard for those who vote?
MM
A natural born citizen, 35 years old, and a resident of the US for 14 years. I would not call these minimal, but nevertheless the qualifications we now have for voters is a quite recent development. The age was moved from 21 to 18 in 1971. The poll tax was removed in 1964. Women got the vote in 1920. Blacks got the vote in 1870. So why is it inconceivable that voting could once again be restricted? It would be very possible to argue that people collecting welfare for 12 months before an election would be ineligible to vote. I’m not advocating such a change and I don’t think it would be successful today, but in the future when the number of takers outnumbers the payers I can see seniors and workers ganging up on welfare people.
Ivan, maybe the workers and seniors should gang up on welfare people. The problem is identifying the welfare receivers since there are code names used to hide welfare payments such as earned income credit, pell grant (some people have the audacity to call federal higher education welfare scholarships), Academic competiveness grant, SMART grant, SEOG, subsidized loans, social security (the less you pay in the higher "return on your investment" you receive), food stamps, section 8 housing, other means tested housing programs, etal.
It is apparent that college graduates level of ability, strike that and insert education since abilities do follow the bell shaped curve, is somewhat below that of a 1950s high school graduate. I work with college students every day in an institution with much higher standards than the norm yet see incoherent writing, inability to compute, and, worst of all, a sense of entitlement. One student, on a senior project that I gave a "gentlemen's" B, complained that he had never received a grade less than an A. I then took the time to sit him down and point out that as his thesid advisor I would never have approved his topic and walked him through the research paper pointing out the many holes, errors, omissions, and false conclusions based on inaccuract statistical inferences (interesting he thought the mode was equivalent to the average).
Sorry for the diatribe. Our voting public has no idea what or who they are voting for, however they do know that celebrity endorsement is good and that what they see on television is always true. Maybe Huxley was right?
I actually took that civics test and did rather well, scoring 30 out of 33 questions correctly or 90.91%. However it was not all that surprising as I always had a passion for history, economics and polisci even as far back as high school. If anyone here is interested in taking the test I have provided a link;
http://americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
It is a sad shame indeed that most students can't even manage a "C" on this test. The fact that many are taking remedial courses upon reaching college, (those that do), speaks volumes of the nature of our teaching of our youth. Everybody that is born, is not born stupid, just uneducated, howver it seems that they remain that way for most of their lives now-a-days.
To borrow a phrase from "Steely Dan";
"The things that pass for knowledge I just can't understand"
Mickey G
All good points.
My point about welfare recipients was meant more as an example of how the voters could gang up on one particular group and cut them off from voting. Your point about other takers such as SS and students is well taken, but those are programs, and people, who are supported by great numbers. As a SS recipient myself, I see it only as getting back what I and my employers paid during my 42 years of hard labor:>) Any move to take away voting rights from welfare recipients would require a clear statement that SS is NOT considered welfare. Seniors are a big segment of the voting public and generally well thought of. No one wants to deprive poor Mom or their kids.
While I’m at it I would like to suggest a way to help out the SS system. Currently I collect the maximum, based on my age. The system allows those under 66 to earn only $14,160 before being penalized 50% plus taxes. After 66 the limit goes up to $37,680. If the system were changed to allow all (from 62 to 66) collectors to earn $50,000 and collect full benefits then the earners would work, rather than sit on their butts, and pay 14% of their earning back into the system.
I’m with you on the education system. My wife is a professor and she sees many of the problems you describe.
And finally, what scares me is that maybe Orwell was right.
Ivan, as a maximum contributor to SS for 45 or so years I will never even receive all of my contributions in return and I pay the ultimate insult of being taxed on those contributions twice, once when I received the paycheck, again when I receive the SS check. So, is SS a welfare system? You bet! Any system that is means tested is a welfare system.
By the way I graduated high school in 1958 from a fairly elite military high school. Dirt poor family so I was a scholarship kid brought in to raise the school scores on the College Boards. I've had the poor kid chip on my shoulder since I realized we were poor by seeing my classmates families. Along with the chip I avoid anything looking like a handout like the plague.
Most of the SS recipients that I see (seems like almost all of my friends are over 65) are working at least part time. I went back to work full time because acclimatizing to retirement when you averaged 80-100 hours per week during your working life is almost impossible. Thought going back to academia would be a good move but it is disappointing to see the output of the system. My #2 daughter is an Ivy PHD professor and she relates the same stories that I encounter, however hers are even worse as she relates that colleges are trying to give feel good grades in the develpmental coursed (read high school courses for those that slept through high school). If the grade curve is not canted to the right the teachers must be demanding too much. Only time you will see liberals go to the right.
Regarding Orwell, I thought Huxley might be closer to Obama's Change you can believe in (the corollary being he does not believe in it). Wonder when we will be required to capitalize the h in him when discussing Obama.
Richard
I got 30 out of 33 also. #4, #30, & #33 were trick questions:>)
Mickey G
Again, you missed my point, or I did a bad job of explaining. As long as welfare and SS are lumped together we will never have any restrictions on welfare. SS is the third rail. BTW, I recall my first full year of work, I think it was 1962, I paid $63 in SS tax. Most years after that I maxed out by September. Best Wishes.
We have got to face the fact that America did not win the ideological wars of the 20th Century. We lost!
Lamentable? Inappropriate? Unexpected? Sure.
Life stinks.
Our unprecedented wealth, productivity and the military superiority that goes with those give us the illusion that we came out on top across the board. But we didn't. Not on ideology.
Let us all shed a tear and then man-up.
We won't get anywhere with this unless we face the facts.
We've got to start thinking in terms of where we really are, where we want to go, and what is the path from here to there.
In a certain sense, we are starting out all over again.
And we don't, I believe, have any really relevant precedents to follow.
As has often been the case for America.
Mickey G
Not to belabor the point but, I see a logical flaw in your statement: "…as a maximum contributor to SS for 45 or so years I will never even receive all of my contributions in return and I pay the ultimate insult of being taxed on those contributions twice, once when I received the paycheck, again when I receive the SS check. So, is SS a welfare system? You bet!"
A1. You have been a contributor
A2. You claim that you will never get YOUR money back
A3. You have had to pay tax on contributions, twice
B. SS is a welfare system
Only A1 & B prove anything. A2 & A3 just prove you are mad and you use this to justify your illogical conclusion. If you paid in, then receiveing a return is NOT welfare. Welfare is something people get without paying in.
As far as means testing, with SS the more you earn the more you pay, up to a limit. The more you earn the more you get back, up to a limit. Most means testing works the other way around, like welfare. The less you earn the more you get.
Okay, I got 32 out of 33 right. Not a particularly challenging test for this crowd, but I was a little surprised the national average is even lower than a similar test given couple of years ago. Living as I do close to the nation's capital and in deep-blue country, I am not the least surprised by the office-holder gap. Most office-holders are twits appointed for their party loyalty rather than intellect or competence. Elected officials aren't much better, as we don't require them to take tests like this one to qualify. Now, there's an idea!
I agree with you, Mickey, at least about question #30 as that should be regarded more an opinion of best-practice than proved principle. There are still a lot of economists who'd argue against this un-tax + spend formula. Does gravity apply differently to government than the rest of us? If austerity works for the rest of us, why would government be exempt? Spending in a recession may stimulate things a little, but it takes an inordinate amount of spending for only a little regain, and the outcome depends on how deep the recession and how long it takes stimulating your way out of it. Too long, and you've just dug a deeper hole.
Some really good comments here…
I would just like to make a snarky observation:
What was stated:
"Most distressingly, the civics survey found that almost 25 percent of us believe that Congress shares its foreign policy powers with the United Nations. "
Based on recent comments from SCOTUS, I'm thinking many of our Black-robed High Priests are included in the aforementioned figure, but I seem to remember their number at more like 4, (in some decisions 5) out of 9.
[...] of people that future generations will vote into office based on this report. Here is the article. Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy Here is the quiz. Civic Literacy Report – Civics Quiz If you aren't ashamed post and tell us how [...]
Ivan, you fell for the SS propaganda. The way the system works is the less you pay in the "higher return" you receive on what you paid in e.g. your contributions did not support the amount you receive. If you review the system you will see that the more you paid in the lower the return you receive and the maximum contributors will have to live a long time to get contributions back. Personal accounts would have solved this disparity and allowed the welfare part to be easily recognizable, hence the fight to not allow privitization. As far as being a third rail I agree those getting something for little buy in recognize a good deal when they see it. Tax those evil rich so I can have more…leading to the end of the USA as we knew it. By the way my first maximum SS year was 1959 one year after high school graduation.
Mickey G
I didn't fall for anything. I didn't have any choice in paying in, but when I had a chance to collect I was working and didn't bother to make a claim. Later I was out of work, due to age discrimination, and I decided to apply for SS. On my way out of the SS office, I got a call with a job offer and I took it. I made some money, but also made an effort to stay under the maximum, and I also had fun working. This afternoon I have an interview for a job and my SS receipts will be a consideration. Maximizing my income while enjoying life is my goal.
Whatever the return, I still say SS is not welfare. It’s more like a Ponzi scheme, so I guess we could say that FDR=Madoff*1,000. But then if Madoff was paying you with other people’s money, would you refuse to take it?
You might be right about the end of the USA, but we won’t be around to see it. We are just Romans in 350 AD.
I don't necessary disagree with your conclusion, but do have question marks with the basis of your conclusion. Dumbing down of society is not measured by a basic test. I don't think it is important to know where exactly Columbus landed to make a good moral judgement.
In my opinion, dumbing down of society has several causes:
1. For those familiar with the works of Jose Ortega y Gasset, society consists out of noble and mass man. In a democracy mass man is in majority. Hense a democracy will likely end up in mass man's cravings.
2. Technological advances. Some subjects like math, we can do without knowing much of the subject since we have computers who can do it for us. All we need to know now is how to operate a computer. Schools are not teaching the same subjects and same depth of subjects as they used to.
3. Since schools are more about delivering a percentage of graduates, as opposed to delivering good graduates no matter how many, quality of graduates has deminished.
4. Point 3 is also a cause of over the edge left wing politics and an overdone anti-discrimination policy, that also got us into the current economical crisis. Discriminating based upon race, color, sex etc. is not good but you have to stay realistic.
5. Complecancy. This is the most dangerous of all and at this point irreversable. Coming back to point 1, Beavis and Butthead are the icons of American society, so I doubt if we even have 20% noble man left. But the MTV generation is complacent and has no idea other than feeding themselves with mainstream ideas and following the masses where critical thinking is required. When a society evolves from an agricultural to industrial to technological society it starts relying upon knowledge to evolve to an information society. This is where we are supposed to be heading. Instead, we have less knowledge and we will fall back to where we started. Other societies, hard working with a backbone still intact, diciplined and high in moral, will take our place.
See here your future America.