What is amazing about the film Doubt is...
OK This is not really a review of the (excellent) film mentioned above. However, the writing that follows was at least inspired by it.
Basically, a nun spends her every waking hour building a case against a priest for alleged inappropriate behavior with a child in a Catholic school. However, the tools she uses to confirm her suspicions are purely speculative with hardly a scrap of evidence. That is, she uses her suspicions to confirm her suspicions. But this nun exhibits a certain smugness about the whole affair, and expects others to take her word for it as she demands (with sincere conviction) the priest's removal. Was the nun's intuitive judgment correct?
The film (as good films tend to do) refuses to wrap it up nice and neat for us moviegoers, so we'll never really know what the priest was up to, but the film does raise some interesting (and timely) questions for us as citizens.
When elected officials ask us to concur with their proposals, they (the elected officials) assume the burden of demonstrating why we should agree and cooperate, without resorting to classic parental dogmatism (e.g. because I said so). Unfortunately, we've been the (not so proud) recipients of just this sort of dogmatism, from the 2003 request of President Bush to invade Iraq (to avoid an impending military catastrophe) to President Obama's current request to spend tremendous sums of public money (to avoid an impending economic catastrophe).
In both instances speedy and efficient action are not only emphasized, but demanded, while deliberation and debate, the essential tools of any democracy, languish on the sidelines. This suggests that democratic processes, an inefficient and messy business, must be temporarily discontinued when "serious" decisions need to be made. "Trust me on this one" is the bi-partisan mantra, but should we settle for a democracy of convenience?
Ralph Nader once said:
One of the strengths of a democracy is that it trusts its citizens to make intelligent choices about how they should live and be governed. But knowledge is necessary in order to make such intelligent choices and openness in government helps to achieve that end. Information is the currency of democracy.
What we should be asking for (as well as those in Congress) is the necessary information required to make an honest and informed evaluation--criteria, evidence, judgment--of crises as they present themselves. We should refuse to be shut out of this process, especially in times of severe crisis, for these are the decisions that will impact our lives the most (both in the short and long term). After all, democracy, in its classic sense, is comprised of citizens dedicated to managing their own affairs.
Currently, President Obama, as well as key members of his administration, have implored Americans to support his plan for economic recovery. What I expect from President Obama (a President that I voted for) are detailed arguments--premises and conclusions--explaining how, exactly, his proposal will work, as well as the probabilities of success or failure. What I expect, as every citizen should, is a seat at the table of democracy, a place where we can (as President Obama phrased it) "come together."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I absolutely agree with everything you've said here. The lack of debate on this and so many issues (meaning reasoned discussion, not just the finger pointing and bickering we see in most "news" outlets) is so disturbing. I so so so want to believe in Obama, but the kinds of appeals he's using to push through the stimulus package are exactly what Bush and cronies used for their own agenda, which is definitely disturbing. On a related note, I used to teach argumentation to freshmen, and it was so very hard to explain to them why persuasion and argumentation aren't the same thing. I wish the whole nation could get a crash course on the same subject...
ReplyDeleteI agree with the spirit of what you're saying here, but have qualms with the mechanics of how widespread participation in such matters would work. Nader had it right when he said that information is the currency of democracy, but that statement supposes that the citizenry can discern good information from bad.
ReplyDeleteFor example, costs resulting from obesity epidemic in this nation are staggering (literally and figuratively). The rise in obesity continues despite an abundance of readily accessible information about the issue. Multi-nationals spend billions marketing processed pseudo-foods, while public interest groups and authors work to educate us regarding healthier eating habits. Despite having the necessary information to make decisions that would result in their own benefit, our nation's citizens consistently make poor decisions regarding their own nutrition. One is left to conclude that the nation's citizens are incapable of discerning good info from bad, or worse, that they willingly make poor decisions.
Decisions such as "what should I eat for dinner?" are remarkably simple when compared with with phenomena such as mortgage backed derivatives. I know I'm certainly not qualified to make decisions about such issues, and I actually care. While I wish the populace were capable of widespread participation, I'm not sure that a nation who cannot discern a candy bar from a carrot needs to be trying to tackle Wall Street's shell game. I'd be happy if we could just education people to consider questions such as "how much money should I have in savings?" or "do I really need a 4,000 sq. foot house for a family of four?"
You are certainly correct in pointing out (through the use of the obesity example--my 265 lbs frame:) that Americans are making poor (perhaps even irrational?) choices, even though they have access to accurate information. This is somewhat confusing, since we expect informed people to make choices that are in their best interests. However, the point of my post was to re-emphasize the need for ACCURATE information prior to the vicarious assent given by our esteemed representatives in D.C. In your example, people have good info and still screw up, while in my example, people lack good info and are denied the opportunity to screw up. Sure, I (and most people I know) are clueless about the sophisticated financing mechanisms employed in the rough and tumble of Wall St. The question is, do we (the citizens) deserve the basic political economy information (i.e. how political decisions impact economics) of the proposed stimulus before it is passed?
ReplyDeleteYou state that a citizenry too ignorant (or stubborn) to eat properly has no business meddling in the political decision making process. I strongly disagree. In fact, there are many other examples that we could substitute for your obesity issue that would make us much more uncomfortable with (and resistant to) assuming such a defeatist posture (e.g. recidivism in the prison system, property relocation issues in storm-likely communities, parental involvement with failing students and schools, stubborn faculty that damage their institutions by only looking out for their immediate departmental concerns, etc...) Should we conclude that these people should know better and that they cannot be trusted to manage their own (or others) affairs? In a democracy that is, as Sheldon Wolin describes, managed, citizens must find ways to become meaningfully involved besides mere voting, even if that means we make mistakes. Otherwise, we are simply echoing the ancient Greek tradition of politics that suggests the masses cannot be trusted...leave matters to the philosopher-king elites. And as Wolin wickedly points out, look where the wise judgment of the elites got us in Vietnam, Iraq, or Wall Street. Surely, we ignorant masses can do just as good if given the chance:)
I'd like to think all the information I have about what I put into my mouth would keep me from putting it there. But alas...
ReplyDeleteI think we we often assume that lack of information (or access to it) would be the determining factor in what people do or don't do, whereas peoples' decision-making processes are more complicated than that. One issue, of course, is that people's core assumptions and perceptions can predetermine what new information they will choose to believe. (Also, the can of Campbell's Chicken N' Stars costs less than the can of Wolfgang Puck's Organic Minestrone. Or at least it APPEARS to cost less.) But I definitely agree that we have the RIGHT to the information, as you say.
The conversation makes me think about an old Onion article!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29351