I agree with the sentiment of this article, but I'm noticing that some folks can't determine fact from fiction even when presented with data that supports the facts or makes them irrefutable. No amount of logic, facts, or transparency will be enough for these folks, and while I can appreciate a skeptic, some of these people are beyond basic help and need professional guidance.
Like, "if you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?"
So instead of compliance, they'll bring the whole damn thing down in protest. I don't think the plurality of those who refuse the vaccine actively deny the existence of the virus, or even the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. I feel they're just absolutely sick of the hypocrisy and pandering by "leaders" who refuse to lead by example on much of anything.
As many before me have said, you'll always have the kooks that deny science but I honest-to-God think those are the minority.
> how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?"
By arguing that the other options are worse. Democracy and the separation of powers do not result in great decision making. But it also serves as a significant barrier against absolutely horrible decision making, placing it above the other choices.
What separation of power? The country is run by executive fiat and every 4 years the law of the land takes an about face when the next guy comes along to rip up the old guy's diktats. The US legislative branch is kabuki theater and the judicial branch is disgustingly partisan.
Executive orders only allow decisions within the scope of existing laws. So you can move enforcement resources around to prioritize certain things, direct the military to hit different targets, etc. But the executive branch can't just stand up a new daycare program. In plenty of other countries, a change in party control leads to wild changes. Not in the USA.
And whether the legislative branch is theatrical and the judicial branch partisan has nothing to do with the separation of powers. Ok, so they may not work all that well. They are still constrained significantly by each other.
That is really flippant and cynical sounding, but you're right. Seriously. What was the last, actual, substantive piece of legislation to come out of the legislature?
I work in higher education, and a new higher education act has been just over the horizon since what, 1999? Nothing changes, except that which can be changed via executive order, or can be sued and changed in well-established and forecasted voting patterns via the judiciary.
The one defining advantage of a republic is peaceful and lawful transfer of power, and limits of the exercise of that power. Any fundamental change requires legitimization via a durable political coalition. While you may be better off under an enlightened king, what happens after his lifetime? In a monarchy a new king can be weak or crueler and nothing can be done short of bloody revolution. In a direct democracy 51% of the electorate can try to strip 49% of their rights. Republics avoid a single point of failure.
> If you won't trust the voting public enough to give them the whole truth and instead treat them like blubbering fools, how can you--with a straight face--pretend that their ability to pick leaders or vote on actual issues is a correct way to run a country?
Mr. Politician replies, "I trust the individuals that voted for me. They're smart. Its the public in general that can't be trusted."
Maybe the general public should spend more time electing MDs and PhDs to run the government then? Instead we get bullshitters and grifters who defer to life-long bureaucrats with an MD of a PhD who suck-up to the right people to get the job, regardless of their actual competence. People tend to mistrust government "experts" because the feeling is that if they were better at their jobs, they'd obviously be in the private sector. This isn't always true but many people feel that way, like it or not.
People tend to mistrust government experts when politicians tell them to mistrust government experts. Republicans who say they do not trust the CDC on COVID have no such doubts about the DEA, whose decisions on drug policy are just blindly trusted, simply because Republican leaders have told everyone not to trust the CDC. People do not simply draw their own conclusions; like it or not, everyone is influenced by the people around them and people tend to line up behind their leaders.
I knew it already, but wouldn't be surprised. One party appeals to emotion and hides the abject corruption. The other appeals more to reason (and for better or worse, Jesus) but is a bit more frank about their objectives and corruption.
why do we need Phd and MD "inside" the government ?
Instead the government can just ask normal PHd and MD working for the private sector or for university for their opinion.
I 100% understand why people dont trust an MD which is affiliated with a specific Political Party.
If you want expert to be neutral (no political) they can't be part of the government.
What about the times in which there was plenty of such data, only for it to be false in the end, say, typical conspiracy turned true like MKULTRA or NSA?
Bear with me, not every country has as many people doubting their government, the bottom line in my opinion is that public trust in the government has been eroded so much that this happens and these people are aware that the government is capable of spinning lies that seem completely true, so why believe them at all?
Implicit in this argument is that Americans ever did trust their government. Has that actually ever been the case? I mean the whole country is founded on distrust of government as one of the principles.
It doesn't help when politicians are lying or lying by omission. At that point those who don't know better don't know where to turn for information.
The UK has branded the official death stats as misinformation numerous times in the press and interviews to avoid getting into details of how they screwed up in response to all this...
It's not always the fault of those led astray and I'm sure there's a suitable parable about a bad shepherd or something...
Someone believing untruths is different to the nutters burning down 5G masts mind, but yes I worry about when misinformation reaches critical mass...
Quite. I watched a debate between Scott Horton and Bill Kristol.
Watching Kristol remain steadfast in his position despite all evidence is pretty amazing. Horton wasn’t perfect either but at last he had evidence on his side.
I think in the US our situation was pretty dire from the start in regards to misinformation: the president and his staff were saying a ton of crazy crap from day one, from denial, to downplaying to telling people to effectively drink bleach. Pretty clear cut why we have trust issues right now and people denying any information about Covid at all. I mean the article raises great points, but the US hasn't had that problem, because its' been blatant misinformation with no attempt to tether it to any reality from the start. The trust was never there and I'd love to read more articles about how to repair that.
But it has been interesting to see these dynamics described in the article in play out in other Western countries. I have to agree that we have to trust the public, but its conclusion -- that the people will not trust the government otherwise -- is sage. US currently is struggling to claw back any trust. We're in very dire straits.
