老美看美國：民主制度為何選擇糟糕的政策

民主制度為何選擇糟糕的政策

文/他爹，翻譯/他娘

2012年1月25日

由於我前面寫的許多文章揭露美國社會問題，有些讀者認為我「反美」。我不同意。強烈反對！

要做一個好美國人，我的看法是，需要提出問題，事情為什麼這樣而不是那樣。指出不公平之處，向所有的公民問一個問題「我們可以做的更好嗎？」正是因為提出這樣的問題，奴隸制被禁止了。正是這類問題，帶來了民權。正是此類問題，把歐洲從納粹德國蹂躪中解救出來，正是這樣的問題，幫助中國打敗了大日本帝國。

能夠質疑是重要的。但是，了解你要問的問題更重要。這讓你可以問而有據。

所有這些，讓我想討論一下民主制度為何能夠並已經選擇了糟糕的政策。

思考一下這個問題--美國大約有兩億合格的選民。在上次的大選中，大概只有一個億投票了。這是很可怕的。伊拉克數年前第一次選舉投票人數比這個數字比例高很多。也許美國幫助別人發展民主制度比幫自己發展民主制度做的更好。

然而，我們選舉時的低投票率真是一件壞事嗎？也許不是。考慮到也許那一億沒有投票的人並不在乎投票，原因是或許他們意識到自己對很多議題或候選人並不了解，所以決定不去投票。這樣的話，我倒認為是件好事。

我在觀看當前剩下的共和黨內總統候選人提名辯論會時發現，很明顯每一個人都在迎合眼前絕大多數人的隨心所欲。這就是民主制度做出糟糕決定程序的開始。

研究表明，我亦曾親眼目睹，多數選民是如何選擇總統的。候選人只要在一兩個問題上與選民利益一致，比如墮胎或移民，就可以獲得他們的選票。

不是還有更多比流產和移民問題更深遠和更重要得多的影響著其它所有美國人日常生活的問題嗎？我說是。但選民並不是根據這些來投票。一個典型的例子就是羅姆尼是怎樣為了獲得共和黨初選選民的整體青睞而不懈努力的。為什麼會這樣？第一個初選州的基督教福音派投票是非常重要的。羅姆尼是許多福音派基督教認為邪教的摩門教，他在社會問題上的立場被視為是溫和派 —— 如同性戀婚姻或工會、 衛生保健、 國家安全或移民事務。

候選人里獲得眾多基督徒選票的是里克 · 桑托倫、 金里奇 （儘管到目前為止他已有過三任妻子） 和目前的非候選人里克 · 佩里。他們收到的選票總和大於羅姆尼。如果他們是一個有共識的候選人，而不是兩個甚至三個候選人，他們將打敗羅姆尼，共和黨將選出他們非常保守的候選人。

但問題是，這個國家面臨的問題遠比他們那些喋喋不休並且毫無解決之道的議題更為緊迫---墮胎和移民—是不會立馬解決的。然而，這些問題又是人們津津樂道，爭論不休的—這就是文化戰爭。

所以，此類過程，即民主過程，允許公民把和他們一樣相信那些問題的人放在權力位置（墮胎和/或移民），也許那個人在其他方面，作為這個世界上最強大的國家裡最強大的人來說絕對不稱職。

不知情的選民還可以把國家推向"流行觀點"變得瘋狂的方向。國家採取行動制定政策是感情用事，而不是基於深思熟慮的事實。伊拉克戰爭就是一個很好的例子。我並不是反對戰爭 —  我只是反對愚蠢的戰爭。

有很多糟糕的政策是被大眾需求制定的。基本上，群眾都是帶著感情色彩呼喊著要做某件事。然後，要做正確的事情你就要對這件事有所了解。如果你不懂，那就去搞懂，或者乾脆不投票。你不會不試駕就買車吧。那麼為啥要給一個你都沒有研究了解過的人投票呢？你可能會因為某個觀點比如移民跟你觀點一致而投他的票，但是你忘記了他要增加你的稅收，損害你的權力，拿走你的福利，或者把你的孩子或者你自己送到愚蠢的戰場上去。

有句老話「理性的投票人」現在可以說是一個神話了。大多數投票人是無知的。只要有一兩個議題是他們的摯愛（墮胎，移民，好的基督徒，等等），那他們就向那些在這個方面與他們志趣相投的人投票

「知情的公民」是民主社會的理想。但是，普通公民無意成為知情者，然而特殊利益者卻已有圖謀。大多數人都在忙於生計，而不是忙政治。但是，特殊利益群體 (支持生命，反對或支持移民，軍隊製造商軍工複合體等等) 就有其明確的利益。

一個典型的例子，這是糖價。糖有兩種價格--「世界價格」和「美國價格」。猜猜哪一個更貴。猜猜較貴的東西里誰有利益？當然是美國糖種植者。猜猜哪一個團體有超過 90%的人對此無知當然是美國公眾。

是我們把自己陷入這等境地的，因為我們對我們的民選官員不知情，因為，總的來說，我們對他們的真實政策以及思想方式在他們被選舉之前並不知情。為什麼國會的支持率只有12%？然而，下一次大選，他們中80%的人又會重新當選。你知道這是為什麼嗎？因為他會有樣學樣，其他政客怎麼做，他也怎麼做。並且指責所有的一團糟都是別人的錯。因為，普通選民從來不會去看他們的參眾議員們實際上對議題是如何投票的。他們會聽到電視上蜻蜓點水般的評論，說他們的參眾議員們仍然在反對墮胎，反對移民。然後，他們就繼續投票給他。

所以，我懇請大家都去投票—但是，要一個知情的投票者。行駛你的權利！

 「拒絕參與政治的一個懲罰便是你最終會被比你差的人所統治」----柏拉圖

我同意這個觀點。但是，如果參與，就要知情---這樣，你就變成一個理想的公民—一個知情的參與者。

 「意見是介於知識和無知之間的中間部分」。

（原文）

WHY DEMOCRACIES CHOOSE

BAD POLICIES

It』s been brought to my attention by the posts of some readers that they believe I am 「anti USA」. I disagree. STRONGLY.

The key to being a good American, in my opinion, is to raise questions about why things are the way they are, to point out injustices, to ask the question of all citizens 「can we do better」? It』s the kind of question that banned slavery. It』s the kind of question brought about civil rights. It』s the kind of question that saved Europe from Nazi Germany and the kind of question that assisted China and drove back and defeated Imperial Japan.

Asking questions is important. Being knowledgeable about issues is more important – it then allows you to ask the right questions.

All of that brings me to the point of discussing how democracies can and do choose bad policies.

Consider this – there are approximately 200 million eligible voters in the USA. In the last election only about 100 million voted. That』s terrible. Iraq had a higher percentage of voter turnout in their first election several years ago. Perhaps the USA is better at developing democracies for others than it is practicing democracy itself.

But, is low voter turnout in our elections really a bad thing? Maybe not. Consider that perhaps the 100 million people who didn』t vote but could have just didn』t care enough to vote, or realized that they were so uninformed about the issues or candidates that they made the decision to just not vote. I would say that』s a good thing.

As I watch the current debates among the remaining Republican candidates for the Presidential nomination it is very apparent that each of them plays to the overwhelming whim of the group they are in front of. And that is how democracies begin the process of making bad choices.

Studies have shown, and I have personally witnessed, how a majority of voters make a choice for President on only one or two issues that that candidate is favorable for that is the same as the voter, such as abortion or immigration.

Aren』t there many more far ranging and significantly more important issues that effect every day life of all Americans other than abortion and immigration?  I say yes. But that』s not how people vote. A case in point is how Mitt Romney continually struggles to be the overall favorite among GOP primary voters. Why? The evangelical Christian vote is very important in the first primary states to vote. Romney is a Mormon which many evangelical Christians consider a cult and his stance on social issues is perceived as moderate – such as gay marriage or unions, health care, national security or immigration.

The candidates who have gotten the heavy Christian vote are Rick Santorum, Newt Gingerich ( despite having 3 wives, so far ), and the now non-candidate Rick Perry. The total vote they receive in sum is greater than that of Romney.  If there was a concensus candidate instead of 2 or 3 of them they would beat Romney and the Republicans would get their very conservative candidate.

But, the point is that there are much more pressing issues this country is facing than to keep fighting about issues that won』t get resolved – abortion and immigration – anytime soon. But, these are the type of issues that makes people excited to fight about and talk about – cultural wars.

So, this type of process, the democratic process, allows the citizens to put a person in power who believes in those issues just as they do ( abortion and/or immigration ) but that person may be absolutely inadequate in all the other area』s to effectively be the most powerful person in the most powerful country in the world.

Uninformed voters can also push the country in a direction where 「popular opinon」 goes crazy and the nation takes action or makes policy based on emotion rather than well thought out facts. The Iraq war is a great example of this. I』m not anti war – I』m just anti stupid war.

A lot of bad policies are made by popular demand. Basically the masses yelling for something to be done in an emotional issue. However, to do the right thing you have to know something. And if you don』t know – then either find out or don』t vote. You wouldn』t buy a car without driving it – so why vote for someone or something that you haven』t studied? You may vote for someone because you agree with their immigration policy but you missed the part about raising your taxes, impairing your rights, taking away your benefits or perhaps sending your child or you to a stupid war.

The old saying of the 「rational voter」 is a myth. Most voters are ignorant. They have 1 or 2 issues that are dear to their heart ( abortion, immigration, being a good Christian, etc ) and they vote for the person who most strongly appeals to their sense in that way.

The 「informed citizen」 is the ideal of democratic societies. But, the average citizen has no incentive to become informed BUT special interests do. Most people are busy living their lives not politics. But, special interests groups ( pro life, anti or pro immigration, the military industrial complex of manufacturers for the military, etc ) have a distinct interest.

A case in point for this is the price of sugar. There are 2 prices for sugar – the 「world price」 and the 「usa price」. Guess which one is more expensive. Guess who has an interest in it being  more expensive? The American Sugar Growers. Guess which group has over 90% ignorance on this one issue? The American public.

We the people put ourselves into these positions because we are uninformed about our elected officials because overall we are uninformed about their real policies and thought processes before we elect them. Why is it that the approval rating for Congress is only 12%? But, in the next election the probability is that over 80% of them will be reelected !! Do you know why that is? He』ll do what other politicians do and say it』s the other guys fault that everythings a mess」.  But, the average voter will never look to see how their Congressman or Senator actually voted on issues. They will hear one sound bite from tv that their Congressman or Senator is still anti abortion and anti immigration and still vote for him.

So, I implore all to vote – but do so as an informed voter. Exercise your right.

「One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being

 Governed by your inferiors」 – PLATO

I agree with that. But, be informed if you participate – then you will have become the ideal citizen – an informed participant.

   「Opinion is the middle part between knowledge and ignorance 「.

• [01/20]請辭「皇書記」，求拆「掃黃辦」
• [01/21]老美看美國：猶太人後裔現身說法再談種族歧視
• [01/21]老美看美國： 中國會投票選誰做美國總統？
• [01/22]丹奇攜他爹，博二代漢娜神園和童子軍小狼 給大家拜大年
• [01/24]國會議員問我，今晚華裔社區有啥活動嗎？
• [01/26] 老美看美國：民主制度為何選擇糟糕的政策
• [01/27]軍媽日記 （25）童子軍安全課：有人欺負你，可以揍人嗎？（圖）
• [01/27]詩朗誦：致橡樹
• [01/29]老美看美國: 對制度進行質疑的重要性
• [01/30]老美看美國：如果我是總統！
• [02/02]執導科普片「母乳餵養好處多」的趣事
• [02/04]國會議員希拉傑克森李: 主辦大都會交通項目招標論壇 通知
• [02/05]這是一種怎樣的愛情？--電視劇【我的娜塔莎】觀后感

• 查看：[丹奇的.最新博文]
• 查看：[大家的.最新博文]
• 查看：[大家的.熱點雜談]