There is an abundance of evidence that people, specifically Americans, are getting very stupid. I'm not saying that individuals are dumbing themselves down. It's more of an overall trend. It's becoming more acceptable to be ignorant than I ever thought possible. I don't understand why it is tolerable to regress.
This has bothered me ever since 2000, but I've refrained from writing about it. However, after seeing a CNN users' poll on Saturday, I need to address the issue.
The question was: "Do you believe the Loch Ness Monster exists?" The fact that CNN, a news organization, would have this question as a poll while serious things are going on in the world, is disturbing. But that isn't the issue for now. I was on the phone with Quincy Ledbetter when I saw this. Before I voted in the poll, I asked him what percentage he thought would select yes. I think he guessed 9%. I guessed 15% or 20%. We both figured there could not possible be a higher percentage of people who would believe that. Then I was reminded that the people taking this poll are people who are reading CNN.com on a Saturday afternoon. After taking that into consideration, I lowered my prediction to 12%.
I clicked "No," then submitted my vote. When the results were displayed, I lost all hope in humanity. 41% of those surveyed believe in the Loch Ness Monster. This isn't scientific. But I'd guess that if 41% of CNN weekend readers believe a giant beast lives in a lake, and has never been seen, at least 55-60% of the general population believes this. This is like believing in Big Foot or Martians. My uncle is mildly retarded and he knows these things don't exist.
I mentioned Idiocracy last week. It's a film whose premise is that dumb people have more kids than smart people. As a result, eventually the world will be rid of smart people. The movie is hilarious, but also rings true to a degree that is disturbing. Everyone I know who has seen it, was scared of its predictions. It contains the line, "We have to see what your aptitude is good at." And anyone who uses proper grammar is labeled "faggy." We aren't far from that.
Look at television. There are a lot of great scripts for shows floating around, waiting to be produced. Most of them will never be seen. On the other hand, there is a prime time show on ABC in which you watch people play bingo. This is a real show. When I first saw an ad for it, I thought it was a teaser for a sketch on Kimmel. No, it's a serious, 30-minute show. Within the next six months, we'll probably see a show where you watch people buy lottery tickets, or play Uno, or argue over dinner, do laundry, read, or possibly a show in which you watch people watch TV. "Oh, he's doing what I'm doing. I can totally relate. This is entertaining."
I know you aren't supposed to mention anything political if you're a comic, but the political scene is microcosmic,
and a result, of this trend. Don't take any of the political analysis personally. I'm trying to be even-handed, as both sides are guilty dumbing down the country, and taking advantage of their constituents. If I mention one side more than the other, it is unintentional.
The 2000 presidential campaign was when I first realized that being smart is a bad thing. Al Gore, like him or not, is brilliant. I thought people would hold this as a virtue. A presidential virtue. I was wrong. He was labeled a robotic, fact-spewing, Washington-insider, nerd. His opponent, President Bush, was labeled as an outsider with whom you'd like to have a beer. Somehow, Gore's label worked against him, whereas Bush's worked in his favor. That is unconscionable. Why wouldn't you want your president to be a nerd who as an insider? This bothers me every single day.
Don't get me wrong. Bush is very intelligent too. He acts like he isn't an intellectual, but he wouldn't have been the Governor of Texas, and the President if he wasn't very smart. If you watch his speeches from his years as governor, you will see that he was a very fluid, eloquent speaker. But he realized that he would appeal to more Americans if he seemed more like a guy you'd watch football with, than a "boring" guy like Gore. Either it was a conscious decision, or Bush had a stroke.
Another thing that came about at the same time, through the campaigns was attacking "the intellectual elite." It actually became popular to attack those with higher education for being all smart and stuff. How backwards is that? It's not a mystery as to where these attacks were coming from. It's sad that they occurred. But what's more sad is that they were effective in swaying votes. People actually voted for one side because they thought the other side represented the intellectual elite. No one knows what the exact number of votes were, but many polls around that time indicated a dislike and distrust for the intellectual elite, with whom Gore was associated. Meanwhile, the leader of the side they voted for was a Harvard and Yale graduate. How could people not see through that hypocrisy? Put yourself in Bush's shoes. If people don't notice the hypocrisy, why wouldn't you ride it out? Other than integrity...(By the way, I'm not citing statistics, which seems hypocritical, but this is a blog, not a scholarly journal. Everything I'm stating is fact. You can look it up.)
Al Gore just released a book entitled "The Assault on Reason." The book dissects the publics' mistrust of logic, refusal to embrace scientific advancement and preference for style over substance. He's accurate on all three accounts. He says that much of the blame for this is the media. He's right. Sound bytes rule the airwaves. They oversimplify every issue. The facts get brushed aside. And non-issues become issues. An example of a non-issue, other than the obvious, like Terry Schaivo and how much candidates pay for their haircuts, would be "flip-flopping." First of all, "flip-flopping," is a dumb way of saying someone is a hypocrite. Why not just say "hypocritical," instead of making up an elementary catchphrase? Also, isn't it considered virtuous to learn from your mistakes and change positions after admitting them? Most famously, Kerry was attacked for this. If Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani get the nominations for the next election, Clinton will call Giuliani a flip-flopper whenever she can find a microphone. It's all trivial stuff, but buzzwords work when the populace is apathetic and complacently ignorant, and even displays apathy toward its apathy. People don't care that they don't care. Forty years ago, it was, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." We've gone from that to apathy in a generation.
Eighteenth century historian, Alexander Tyler, wrote in his "Cycle of Democracy,"
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The current presidential race applies perfectly to this. The Republican side has three candidates who are open and honest: John McCain, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee. They are all smart and speak in fact, and with conviction. One of them should be the Republican candidate, based simply on the fact that they aren't trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. McCain has an outside shot. Paul doesn't have a chance. He's been attacked non-stop for using logic, relating to September 11, in the debates. Look it up. Huckabee is far right and talks about Jesus more than Jesus' parents did. He could pull a Bill Clinton and win, but he doesn't evoke 9-11 like Giuliani and Romney. Therefore, I don't think he'll catch up. Substance can't win.
If you disagree about evoking 9-11, consider this April 24, 2007, statement by Giuliani. “If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001." But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, "terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.” That is despicable, but got less airtime than the price of John Edwards' haircut.
Michael Bloomberg is most likely going to jump in the race. He will not win because he said, in reference to the JFK terror plot, that people are at a greater risk of having heart attacks or being struck by lightning. It is a fact. It's also a positive fact, that we are safer than people assume. But he will be branded as weak on terrorism.
In last night's debate, Giuliani stated that he's against trying diplomacy with Iran. The only people who disagreed with this position were Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore. Both are radical on practically every other issue. How is he against talking to someone he's labeled an enemy? How else do you make them an ally? By attacking them? The sad part is, his is a popular stance. Unbelievable.
When Ron Paul said you spread democracy by example, not by pointing a gun at someone, the crowd did not respond, and the other candidates may as well have scoffed. That collapse of logic on the part of the other candidates is incomprehensible.
Every Republican candidate was opposed to people being openly gay in the military. Why? What is the adverse effect on the military? It seems to be working well for every other Western nation. If they're against gays serving in the military, the question of equal gay rights doesn't even need to be asked. Somehow, this appeals to people. They hear anything anti-gay, and they love it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be said.
Mitt Romney was the only person who said he believes that every American should have health care. Everyone else said something to the effect of, "health care should be affordable." In other words, if you're poor and can't afford it, you're on your own. They say that all Americans should have health care and the system needs to be fixed. But they do nothing about it. I have dozens of friends who don't have health insurance. They all work hard and deserve it, but can't afford it. One of my friends is a graduate student. He works part-time to pay his bills, but can't afford health insurance. He's having surgery in a few months and will have to find a way to pay for it out of his pocket. That should never happen. These candidates are intrinsically saying that health should be correlated to income, that if you're poor, you don't deserve health care. It's a travesty to claim to be the "Party of Life," as Brownback describes them, and not care to provide the poor with the basic human right of health care. To paraphrase Bobby Kennedy, as long as there is excess, it's inexcusable for others to live in poverty.
Somehow, this will not be brought up in the media. In post-debate analysis, no one will talk about it. However, they will talk about each candidate's position on evolution (Scopes trial again? We've now had consecutive Popes who acknowledge evolution. Why can't the public?), whether or not English should be the official language, and abortion. How are any of those issues comparable to health care?
Sam Brownback actually brought up that we need to use all of our resources to combat cancer. Great idea! No one backed him up on it. Everyone agrees that cancer should be cured, but it cancer can't be politicized. Although it was the most positive moment in the two-hour debate, people haven't talked about it all day in post-debate analysis.
On the Democratic side, there's a little more open speech, but the media controls who is heard, and essentially selects the candidate. Media coverage always favors the empty, rhetoric-dominated candidates, because they are easier to sensationalize. These candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Clinton refuses to admit that revenue will have to increase in order to provide universal health care. You have to be pretty dumb to fall for that. Sadly, 30% to 40% of Democrats have fallen for it. That's the tip of the iceberg with her. She says anything that people will respond to and will do anything for a vote. Obama, on the other hand, isn't sleazy, but has offered no substance. He's all rhetoric and charisma. Somehow these two candidates have significant leads on the rest of the field.
The Democrats' simplification of Iraq is disgusting too. They're all saying, "Just leave now," so they can pander to the anti-war left. You can't destroy a country, then say, "We're leaving. Work it out." But by taking this stance, they get votes. No one wants to look at the reality of the situation. Joe Biden is the only Democrat who has an actual solution, which includes setting up a federal system. This has proven to work throughout history. The other candidates change the subject when this is brought up. His resolution won't get momentum in the Senate because the Senate Majority Leader is divisive and panders to the anti-war left at every opportunity.
Biden is also the only candidate who seems to care about ending the genocide in Darfur(On the Dem side. Brownback cares too.). Others say they do, but won't do anything about it. He speaks passionately about Darfur, but his words fall on deaf ears. He first said this,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UAOHAqVoVZM&mode=user&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=irdHYG_jpgw . Then other Democrats said we need to pressure the Sudanese government to stop the genocide. This is something we'd do over the course of the next couple years. Biden responded with this.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UAOHAqVoVZM&mode=user&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=irdHYG_jpgw . He will not gain support because he isn't pandering to the anti-war left. It is sickening that people ignore the substance in his speech.
Looking at the entire Democratic field, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich are honest. They are also very smart and offer specific ideas for bettering the country. They will not get elected because: 1) Biden is too matter-of-fact. He could be the smartest person in Congress. He doesn't decorate his speech. He states facts and moves on. In Sunday's debate, he said, "Let's cut through the malarkey." People don't want to have beer with people who say "malarkey." People don''t vote for people with whom they wouldn't want to share a beer. 2) John Edwards is too honest on every issue. He's also running on ending poverty. Few who haven't lived in poverty will support this. 3) Chris Dodd... doesn't have a chance. 4) Kucinich is way too far left.
As I stated before, one of the main reasons for this is media coverage. Look at this graph of talk-time at the second Dem debate.
It's ridiculous that Clinton and Obama get talk time on practically every question. Each candidate should be afforded equal time.
Another issue that demonstrates Americans' ignorance and apathy is many Republicans' opposition to scientific progress. Scientific progress is what has got us to this point in our civilization, yet people are now rejecting it in an apparent effort to achieve a pointless scientific homeostasis. These oppositions are to new energy technology, global warming, refusal to accept evolution, the human genome project, stem cell research, and calling the Big Bang a "theory." It is science. No one has disproved the Big Bang in almost a century of its existence. It doesn't have to refute religion either. Einstein was very religious and also, of course, understood the Big Bang, and that the universe is expanding. Also, the Pope acknowledges the Big Bang as being part of God's creation. The worst part of this scientific refusal is that the candidates themselves most-likely don't believe what they're saying. However, it's another opportunity to pander.
Note: The percentage of people who believe in the Lock Ness Monster is greater than the percentage who believe in the Big Bang.
This leads to another issue. Almost every candidate on both sides has been talking about religion, and their reliance on it. That is irrelevant to governance. There is a separation of church and state that should be observed. It is violated every time a candidate for office panders to religious people. Religion has nothing to do with policy, political integrity or will. People should stop falling for this. Ironically, Mitt Romney, the Mormon candidate, who has been attacked for being Mormon, is one of 2-5 candidates who hasn't spoken out about his or her religion.
Cable news is what causes debates on non-issues, and is a medium for constant pandering. Coincidentally, it is a sham. Following the lead of talk-radio, FOX News started a trend of bucking news in favor of opinions based on buzz words and sound bytes. People like having their opinions fed to them, instead of hearing the facts and forming their own opinion. FOX's ratings were great. As a result, the other cable news networks have followed suit. Not to the same extreme, but they're getting there. Give CNN and MSNBC a couple more years. Few on each network are just reporting news. It is contributing to the number of people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster.
(Note: Tucker Carlson's show is on in the background. Today's episode was almost entirely dedicated to Paris Hilton. Darfur and climate change will get less combined time all month.)
The other issue with elections is money. This is separate from the issue of the dumbing down of our country, but it is important. If you aren't first or second in money, you have no chance, which is why elections should be publicly funded. I don't recall the exact figure of cash on hand for Clinton, but it's somewhere around $30 million. Mike Gravel has $498. You can make that much in a weekend at Applebees. Gravel is crazy and doesn't have a chance. But he's debating people who are sitting on $30 million. That is not fair.
If you're reading this, I think you understand what's going on. How do we make others wake up, stop being apathetic, and stop believing in the Loch Ness Monster? When that happens, things will get back on track. I guess it's hard to care when bingo is on the TV.
I'll go back to writing funny stuff tomorrow. Thanks for reading.
