The Wondering Mind

By now, many people have seen or heard about Michelle Bachman’s performance on MSNBC’s Hardball.

Since then, I’ve read many comments by people who expressed sympathy for “the poor people of her district” who voted for this crazed woman. I’ve never bought that line of thinking for one minute. Someone so extreme and so stupid as to say the things she did, is not someone who suddenly turned stupid or crazy overnight; so unless she was mute until now, she would have said other things in public, and it’s reasonable to suppose that many of those statements were probably just as stupid.

Sure enough, there are now floods of articles on the web chronicling this woman’s inanity. Here are just two examples:

• Michele Bachmann: “Not All Cultures Are Equal” (EXCLUSIVE VIDEO)
• Bachmann: Iran has plan to turn part of Iraq into terrorist haven

So really, it’s hard to feel sorry for the “people who voted for her”. Either they knew what a crazy retard Bachman was and voted for her anyway, or they really should have known and it’s hard to blame others for their ignorance.

But with Bachman suggesting, very McCarthy-esquely, that people should be tested for “pro-Americanism”, I began to wonder if people shouldn’t be tested for other things. Like fitness to stand for public office. And maybe fitness to vote.

I’m not being flippant here. There are plenty of things people do which can have consequences, especially on other people, and people are required to take and pass tests before they are allowed to engage in those activities. Like driving and, in sane places around the world, the right to use (never mind own and carry) firearms. And voting is considered an activity requiring sufficient maturity that you are not allowed to vote until you are 18 in many countries.

The tests would not be about ideologies and beliefs held, but about whether you are properly acquainted with facts. Like knowing that Iran does not have some secret plan for annexing parts of Iraq, for example. The standard for running for office would be higher than for voting, and have other safeguards, like  disqualification if you make ignorant comments about France which is factually completely wrong. This would cut down also on much of the “negative campaigning” (read: LIES).

There are, of course, issues with such an idea. One is that in a country like the United States, people have an ignorant aversion to regulation. Until someone dies from a faulty drug, their unsafe car rolls over, or the financial world implodes from its greed and corruption. But I think I just explained why objections against regulation are wrong-headed.

Another problem is that even if those running for office and the voters know the facts, that is no guarantee that they will not act on prejudices, like the vitriol we’ve seen throughout this campaign against Muslims. It would be hard to do anything about candidates blindly denying facts staring them in the face, and voters buying it whole-sale.

Finally, it’s hard to convince people that they have to earn something they’ve always seen as a right inextricably linked to democracy, by demonstrating a basic level of competence and fitness to participate in the business of choosing a society’s future direction, which so many seem to lack. But what so many people today have forgotten is that rights always come with responsibilities. Without responsibilities, rights are no longer what they were; they simply become indulgences.

In case anyone was still under the delusion of China having been transformed into a modern paradise of freedom and democracy by that august and incorruptible body known as the International Olympic Committee, we have this announcement (more like a threat actually) from China.

What’s note-worthy about it is not the oppressive propaganda the Chinese authorities are spouting, but the crude nature of the propaganda. It’s so patently absurd that no one would take it for anything other than a crude attempt at coercion and intimidation, and also a load of rubbish.

As the recent conflict in Georgia demonstrated, a country can ride rough shod over international opinion and consensus if they are rich and powerful enough, even if they are not the United States. But there are limits even to the power of riches, as the Russians found out.

The Chinese may be encouraged by the sort of shenanigans going on in the American elections, where mud-slinging with half-truths and outright lies actually seems to work. But those tactics rarely convert people to your argument, only succeeding in reinforcing existing biases, especially when it comes from a less than reputable source. Sure, it fires up the faithful, but that’s hardly necessary in an authoritarian country.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I just find it surprising that a country that has come so far economically has not learned more sophistication in its international propaganda efforts.