As the
United States enters the homestretch of the 2004
presidential election, the majority of citizens remain
ignorant about many of the issues at stake. Surveys show
that 70% of American adults don't know that Congress
recently passed a prescription drug benefit for senior
citizens, even though the new law - projected to cost
US$500 billion over the next 10 years - is probably the
most significant domestic legislation passed during the
administration of President George W Bush. More than 60%
do not know that Bush's term has seen a massive increase
in domestic spending, about 25% above previous levels,
that has led to a major increase in the national debt.
And despite the extensive media attention focused on
employment numbers, almost two-thirds of the public
don't know that there has been a net increase in jobs
this year. Three-quarters admit they know little or
nothing about the USA Patriot (Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, and 58%
mistakenly believe that the Bush administration
perceives a connection between former Iraqi president
Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001.
However sad those results may be, they are not
surprising. Decades of research show that most US
citizens know very little about politics and public
policy. Ignorance goes beyond lack of awareness of
specific issues. Even more alarming is that most
citizens lack basic background knowledge about political
leaders, parties and the structure of government. For
example, the majority of Americans don't know the name
of their congressman, which branch of government is
responsible for which issues, and the basic differences
between liberalism and conservatism. Immediately after
the 2002 congressional elections, only 32% knew that the
Republicans had held control of the US House of
Representatives prior to the balloting.
It is
tempting to conclude that voters must be lazy or stupid.
But even a smart and hard-working person can rationally
decide not to pay much attention to political
information. No matter how well informed a citizen is,
her vote has only a tiny chance of affecting the outcome
of an election; about one chance in 100 million in the
case of a presidential race. Since her vote is almost
certain not to be decisive, even a citizen who cares
greatly about the outcome has almost no incentive to
acquire sufficient knowledge to make an informed choice.
Acquiring significant amounts of political knowledge so
as to be a more informed voter is, in most situations,
simply irrational. But the rational decisions of
individuals create a dysfunctional collective outcome in
which the majority of the electorate is dangerously
ill-informed.
People who can influence politics
in ways beyond casting a vote and those who simply find
politics interesting might learn about it for perfectly
rational reasons. But few of us are influential
activists or campaign contributors. And most Americans
find politics far less interesting than other forms of
entertainment. Polls show that many more people know the
names of the judges on The People's Court than
those on the Supreme Court.
If political
ignorance is rational, there are limits to America's
ability to reduce it by reforming the education system
or by improving media coverage of politics. Studies show
that knowledge levels in the US have remained roughly
constant for decades in spite of massive increases in
education levels and greatly increased availability of
information. With the rise of the Internet and 24-hour
news channels, political knowledge is readily available
to those willing to take the time and effort to find it.
The problem is not that the truth isn't out there, but
that most don't bother to seek it.
Even if the
majority of voters were willing to pay more attention to
politics than they do, that still might not be enough to
cope with the complexities of modern government. The
federal government alone spends more than 20% of the US
gross domestic product and adopts thousands of
regulations that touch on almost every aspect of
Americans' lives. Even the best-informed voters are
unlikely to be aware of more than a small fraction of
this activity. Thus huge swaths of government power are
likely to escape public scrutiny, and therefore also
escape public accountability and democratic control. If
government had fewer functions, it might be easier for
voters to keep track of them.
The problem of
political ignorance is not going to be solved any time
soon. But it may be possible to ensure that more people
possess at least basic political knowledge. At the same
time, we should consider the possibility that a
government with fewer functions might be easier for
voters to understand and control.
Ilya Somin is assistant
professor of law at George Mason University, Virginia.
He is the author of the new Cato Institute study "When
Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens
Democracy" and the book Democracy and the Problem of
Political Ignorance, forthcoming from the University
of Michigan Press. This article was provided by the Cato
Institute.
