The problem with US political discourse...every opinion matters

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Before anybody attempts to give me a civics lecture, I know everybody in the US is entitled to their opinions. I know everybody in the US gets one vote regardless of whether they are rich or poor, ignorant or educated, White or Black, etc.

This does not mean everybody's opinions should matter. When it comes to issues that involve complex issues and require specialized expertise to understand, the only opinions that should matter are the opinions of people who have expertise in the area.

In our current political discourse, the opinions of climate scientists on global warming are given just as much weight as Glen Beck's opinions. In the current political discourse, the CBO's opinion on whether the Health care reform bill is deficit neutral is given just as much weight as the opinion of some angry uneducated tea bagger.

To analogize, let us assume you have an Uncle Harry who lives in Ohio. I have never set foot in Ohio, let alone met your Uncle Harry. I am entitled to have any opinion I want about your Uncle Harry. I can speak my mind about your Uncle Harry.

However, if an important decision were to be made that involved assessing your Uncle Harry's character, my opinion should not matter. One should consult Uncle Harry's friends, coworkers, family, and neighbors. One would be a fool to rely on my opinion of your Uncle Harry. In fact, any sensible person would ignore my opinion. The best opinions about your Uncle Harry would be the people that have had close relationships with him that have lasted for years.

When it comes to American politics, we seem to show little or any regard for those that have spent years learning, studying, and working with Uncle Harry. This is dangerous because if we want to understand Uncle Harry, we should rely on those closest to him, not on those who hardly know him.




posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I'm not a tea bagger or anything like that, but i can point to a flaw in your theory.


lobbyist.

they have made it to where these experts can't all be trusted, it seems people will say or promote anything now a days for a buck, promotion or some sort of kick back.

that doesn't mean we shouldn't trust said experts, it just means everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt and looked at from more then one persons, or committees point of view.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Alaskan Man
 


You are correct in that we should not automatically assume experts are always right. Sometimes experts are biased and sometimes the greatest minds have it all wrong. This does not mean, however, that we should disregard an expert's opinion and supplant it with someone who has no idea what they are talking about.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


definitely, and I'm not advocating that, I'm just saying look at both sides of the argument and the evidence they provide, and take every experts opinion with a grain of salt, it wasn't to long ago that all the experts agreed the earth was the center of the solar system.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
and here's another one
not all experts agree
but I did stay at a Holiday Inn
Express last night



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
and take every experts opinion with a grain of salt,


am I missing something here
u just contradicted urself
if ur gonna take their opinions with a grain of salt
then why the he!! ask them to begin with???



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


because they're experts for some reason, whether it be from education or experience.


i trust a meteorologists take on tomorrows weather to be more accurate then my best friends, but i also know that the meteorologist can make mistakes.

edited grammar.



[edit on 3/30/2010 by Alaskan Man]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Actually, The Founders foresaw this, which is why the country is a representative Republic, not a Democracy. They were concerned about the "tyranny of the majority." Rather than government by mob, as in the Icelandic Althing, they were inclined to trust an elected body of men (and in those days they were only men) who were sufficiently invested in the status quo (by being land-owners) and sufficiently educated and worldly to have informed opinions about things like Admiralty Law, the Spanish Succession, and so forth. Unfortunately, people have convinced themselves that the US is a Democracy. It never was.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join