Are voters really as well-informed as they think they are?
By Wei Seng
But are you working harder to keep yourself well-informed?
Since my return from Canada, I have been trying, but failing, to catch up on my last issues of The Economist before my subscription expires.
I was reading the special report published in the April 23rd issue on Democracy in California, and amongst all the generally very good articles about politics and democracy in California and America, this article caught my eye: how voters decide based on their limited amount of knowledge, which they think is sufficient to make a decision but think that their fellow voters are not as well-informed to make the same decision as they. I attempt to summarise the findings here, but you should read the original article for the full statistics and studies.
A survey of voters done in California apparently indicates that "fewer than half of respondents" have "confidence in their fellow voters to make public-policy decisions at the ballot box", which would naturally mean that they probably have more confidence in their own decision-making, that the decision they make is a well-informed one.
We learn in Economics that perfect information / knowledge can never take place because there will never fail to be gaps and loopholes in our knowledge (through breakdown / misunderstandings in communication for instance), which would then inhibit how we make decisions. So certainly there's no expectation for a voter to be omniscient. But how much information is sufficient for one to make a wise decision when voting?
A follow-up poll done indicates that many claim to have "'some' or 'a lot of' knowledge about how state and local governments spend and raise money". But when they were then assessed about their knowledge, i.e. asked to answer questions pertaining to various aspects of the state spending and budget, the percentage of voters who got it right (i.e. really know their stuff), suffice to say, are much, much lower than the percentage of voters who think they got it right (i.e. think they know their stuff but actually they dont).
But what's disturbing, according to the survey, is that apparently the older, more educated, wealthy and attentive voters are actually more prone to being misinformed or not have accurate understanding of the issues at hand. It is suggested that this is because of "self-interest" and maybe "a potential blindness to issues outside of one's own experience". Which probably means that someone who has the experience with the issue is more likely to fall back on what he observes in his experiences rather than what is truly the situation, which he might not have exposure to or knowledge of.
The article alludes to another reason for people not knowing their stuff - misinformation. Which is quite a valid concern in California, given that in the previous and subsequent articles there is a lot of talk about how interest groups with the most money flood the airwaves and broadband with their "misinformation". Which, when combined with ignorance or with the tendency to sympathise with your own beliefs, is a deadly combination for the polls. Plus it doesnt help that their official documents are dripping with "legalese" and obscurities.
Link back to Singapore. In the election that just passed, I have seen people who are either staunchly pro-PAP (People's Action Party, for our foreign readers) or staunchly pro-opposition. And when I ask them why, many of them quote from their own experiences to formulate their own stance and hence their own vote. So while in an ideal election people vote based on what is best for them and for everyone, on the basis that they are as well-informed as possible about the benefits, disadvantages and trade-offs of the various parties, it will never come to be an election that truly operates in this way, because we are all shaped by our experiences, thinking that we really know it all when in fact we just "know".
Which can apply to me as well. Do I really think I am well-informed when I write about this article questioning people's knowledge?
“The mother of all wake-up calls”
By Wei Seng
The Arab populace has awakened
I apologise (which I often do whenever I write here these days) for not coming here often enough to write. Ironically, focusing on my job, which requires me to read up on current affairs, together with other demands such as learning driving have meant that other obligations such as housework and writing for ERPZ.net has been relegated to the back seat.
This article that I wish to highlight today, written by Thomas Friedman for New York Times, has been with me since 2 weeks ago, but I only got to really reviewing it today. In summary it talks about the Arab revolutions and the awakening of the Arab populace after decades of repression, stagnation and ignorance. The content is still relevant, even though coverage of the Arab revolutions have dipped as Libya is mired in a drawn-out civil war-like situation while other breaking news emerge (such as the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear blowout triple tragedy that is affecting Japan).
Friedman starts by telling America to end its "addiction to oil", and it is precisely because of this addiction to oil that the Arabian dictators and kings have managed to cling to power, in a formula that he recants: "keep your pumps open, your oil prices low, dont bother the Israelis too much and... you can do whatever you want". This puts America at the wrong side of history: how can the champion of democracy and freedom be silently condoning the prejudice of freedom of the Arab people?
He makes it clear that the revolutions are "not going to be a joyride" because this is taking place in a region with "frail institutions, scant civil society and virtually no democratic traditions or culture of innovation". Hopefully we're not looking at a transition from one pro-American dictator to another Islamist one, or a military junta. It would be too much to expect the emergence of an India, but it would be good if it could go in the direction of Turkey or Indonesia, two Muslim-majority countries that are also vibrant democracies, albeit with their own issues and hiccups with their experience with democracy.
Friedman concludes by saying that America should "root for" the democracy movement "without being in the middle of it". This seems to confuse me a little bit, but I suspect his meaning here is to support democracy but to give them free rein in deciding for themselves how they want to be governed rather than have America impose top-down a democratic framework. The Arab people have woken up, spoken and it is up to the West to give them tacit support.
Politics in America: Learn from Singapore?
By Wei Seng
Time to take politics & governance seriously?
Thomas Friedman, one of my favourite writers, in a visit to Singapore at the end of last month, proudly proclaims that there are lessons to learn from Singapore for American politics.
Politics? One might question. Singapore is supposed to be well-known for or often perceived in the West as a more authoritarian, repressive country. But here the learning pointers are precisely from the way politics is conducted: "Taking governance seriously, relentlessly asking: What world are we living in and how do we adapt to thrive?"
"Taking governance seriously" is vague and sounds as if the American government does not take governance seriously, but sometimes the things they do and the things they argue about, you really wonder if these people are in a government by the people, for the people, to serve the people or to serve their own interests. Even if the people in government were really concerned about the state of the nation, their stubborness and refusal to compromise or cooperate is paralyzing proper governance.
Singapore's brand of politics might be said to be of the pragmatic kind, which is pretty much the nature of Singaporeans in general: doing things not just for the sake of doing things, but because there are benefits, or because they work. No point harping so much on theory or idealism, whatever works is whatever shall be done. In a world where globalisation continually integrates parts of the world together, the line between democracy and other forms of governance or ideology start to blur, and perhaps it is wiser to adapt and subscribe to whatever works?
Not that I am an ardent or blind supporter of the way Singapore's democracy works, but I do feel that it is better to have a working government, albeit one that prescribes and reproaches like a strict parent, rather than a dysfunctional government that struggles to do anything at all for its people.
Read the whole article to get a good idea of what he thinks is good in Singapore. But ultimately, as Friedman concludes, what America should learn from Singapore is the correct "attitude" to adopt in governance.
Anyone disagrees with Friedman?
Time for Palestine to declare independence?
By Wei Seng
Time to fly the flag high?
A belated Happy Lunar New Year to all readers of ERPZ.net!
I have been sitting on this newspiece for more than a month, rereading and mulling over its contents. What the writer proposes seems like an act of brinksmanship. Is it really "an idea whose time has come"?
In The Guardian last month, Simon Tisdall proposes that a sovereign Palestinian state be declared, one recognised by the US and the United Nations. Sounds like a silly idea without basis for support, even though he argues that because of current circumstances the status quo is untenable. Indeed, the Palestianian Authority's Fatah government has been undermined, and the only way for it to regain the trust of its citizens and its recognition of legitimacy by Hamas and the world would be to declare independence, regardless of whether talks with Israel are successful or not. But it is naive to believe that the US would support such a move even if it is unhappy with Israel over its continued refusal to listen to the US.
Supposedly many states (mostly smaller nations) recognise in theory an independent Palestine. But without the backing of major powers, it would not be worthwhile to mount a declaration of independence without starting another Israel-Palestine war.
The happenings in Tunisia and then Egypt between the time this article was published and today changes the whole picture again, which makes this article I feature all the more relevant. It might really be time for Israel to start thinking about Palestine, because should Mubarak's government collapse and give way to a Muslim Brotherhood regime, it would mean the isolation of Israel in the Middle East with the departure of its closest ally and neighbour.
Is it really time for an independent, sovereign Palestine state?
US – The Frugal Superpower?
By Wei Seng
Time to be frugal about America's foreign affairs?
In a commentary published by the Project Syndicate, Michael Mandelbaum, an American foreign policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, writes about the "belt-tightening" days ahead for America the superpower as a result of its exploding national debt and budget deficit. The superpower will now have less resources to pour into its hegemonic initiatives, some that "for all its shortcomings (have) underpinned political stability around the world". He states the three rules that the "frugal superpower" should adopt in this new world as it strives to continue to exert foreign policy influence.
Rule 1: No more nation building
The writer highlights attempts by the US, post-Cold War, to intervene in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq to "establish working governments". Ultimately these attempts "proved protracted and frustrating" and a lesson learnt here is that proper governance "cannot be built quickly..., imported, ready-made from abroad". Given the current situation of the American economy it would be prohibitively expensive to continue on or to start new national-building missions.
Rule 2: Concentrate on the elephants
This is what I find a bit contentious. The writer proclaims that Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq are "distractions from what should be the focus of US foreign policy", i.e. chasing after rabbits and not looking out for the elephant on the field. The writer then compares Europe, East Asia and the Middle East to the elephants that should be watched out for, by maintaining "balance of power" through America's presence (economic or military). For example, he claims that the US will assure Germany about worries of an aggressive Russia while Germany will be restrained by the US. I agree that many of the American army's incursions have missed the big picture, but it seems weird then to say that regions that these countries belong to are elephants because instability or disturbing situations in individual countries can have an effect on the region as a whole and the Americans might see a prerogative for them to act out of consideration for the big picture. Just as Iraq and Afghanistan are said to be rabbits, instability or chaos in these countries will badly affect stability and confidence in the Middle East and South Asia. Like, can you exclude looking at Iraq if you're looking at the Middle East? Not quite, even though there's also Iran. Indeed America needs to focus on regions as a whole but perhaps the role it should play is more of assurance from mere presence rather than active intervention.
Rule 3: Raise the petrol tax
This third rule is what I agree with the most, and what Thomas Friedman advocates in his book Hot, Flat & Crowded - time to raise the petrol tax to curb oil consumption and to stop funding "undesirable" (from the American point of view at least) oil-exporting countries like Iran and Venezuela. In a review that I will soon do on Hot, Flat & Crowded, I will highlight further how intervention by the Americans in the politics of the Middle East are made complicated by the addiction of the country to oil. The article by Mandelbaum summarises nicely how the whole concept should work.
In essence, all the rules are quite hard to obey, but if American can stick to it as much as possible it would continue to be a superpower of relevance, otherwise it will accelerate into decline as the new superpower China emerges from the shadows.
Problems of an Elite Education
By Wei Seng
Through the hallowed gates of Yale... to a poorer future?
My friend posted a link on Facebook to an article titled 'The Disadvantages of an Elite Education' by William Deresiewicz. I decided to click and take a look at the article and it certainly did not disappoint, perhaps justifying why my friend just had to share the very long article on Facebook. I found many of the ideas communicated in the article quite pertinent to me, given that I was technically in an 'elite' school for the last 6 years of my education.
"The first disadvantage of an elite education": you become unable to talk to people who are not quite like yourself. The writer starts with an anecdote about how he was unable to talk to the plumber in his kitchen, someone presumably with a background totally different from the writer's. I can empathise, because I have encountered this same problem in camp. However while in Singapore the gap between the elite and non-elite is not as wide, that in America is much wider given that elitism not just self-perpetuates in the hallowed campuses of Boston and Ivy League colleges, there is a sense of contempt that is bred by the elite system.
Intelligence, as the writer discovers, is not just about the booksmart kind or the academic or analytic kind that is recognised in the elite education system. Intelligence could be in the form of social intelligence and emotional intelligence, and excellent performance in sports and other non-academic aspects appear to be not as recognised in the elite system.
"The second disadvantage of an elite education": inculcating a false sense of self worth. All the excellent SAT scores and A-level grades only indicate the ability to take tests and perhaps a measure of knowledge, but that does not reflect very much on how far one can succeed in life. Sure, life is a series of tests, but not of the paper-and-pen kind that one can score highly at by mugging away. I take pride in what I know and my academic performance, which the writer acknowledges is something worth being proud of, but so what? Sometimes I lament that I do not know things that many people of my age who went through a mainstream education know, such as cooking (which secondary school students pick up in Home Economics) and fixing of basic electronic devices.
After that feeling of smugness and self-back-patting, there's the idea that "measures of intelligence and academic achievement are measures of value in some moral or metaphysical sense". But humans are all equal, the worth of someone from an elite school is not more than that of someone who was not. As the writer illustrates, "Their pain does not hurt more. Their souls do not weigh more".
And there's the privileges of being in an elite school, that those not from an elite school might not get: exposure to "visiting power brokers" and "foreign dignitaries", scholarships and stipends, opportunities to travel overseas for various reasons ranging from community involvement to research symposiums. I have been very thankful for all the opportunities that my school gave me, and I often wonder what I would have become without all these opportunities. The uneven playing field becomes even less level.
The claims by the writer become more audacious, but echo horrifyingly. Those from elite schools are being pampered for the world they are poised to enter: plenty of opportunity to climb, freedom to pursue one's interests, high-flying careers and social lives. Those not from the elite schools then might be destined for a life of "few second chances, no extensions, little support, narrow opportunity—lives of subordination, supervision, and control, lives of deadlines, not guidelines". All these apply to Singapore quite strongly. But the next few allegations may or may not apply as evidently to Singapore, where the writer suggests that while the system is meritocratic to the point of entry into the elite system, once one gets in it is almost impossible for him to be kicked out for any misdemeanour.
And from there on the allegations lobbed against the elite education system become a bit less applicable to Singapore, though not any less irrelevant or banal. Those who come out from the elite education system may out of 'face' (I use a very Asian concept though the American concept would be pride) not want to pursue anything less than a high-paying job in a comfortable office, though that may not be one's true calling or passion in life. There's the fear of failure, and an obsession with failure even in the banal context of a class test in school. At least in my opinion, there are those from the elite education system who have taken risks and trodded the road less travelled to success (albeit measured in very material manners such as wealth and influence): Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Microsoft and Facebook respectively who both came from Harvard. But regarding the obsession with failure I must claim to be the epitome of this idea because I am so afraid of failure or losing at anything that I tend to restrict myself to doing things that I do well or that I would win, which certainly is not good for my personal development.
The most damning disadvantage of an elite education, the writer accuses after all the disadvantages trickle through, is that "it is profoundly anti-intellectual". I think I shall leave you to go read the article yourself to find out why the writer says this, despite the fact that the elite education is supposed to nurture intellectuals to their fullest potential.
I welcome some rebuttals from all, not just those from the "elite" schools.
Lights Out on Government Intervention?
By Wei Seng
Really?
Paul Krugman, an economics professor, self-proclaimed liberal and columnist for The New York Times, writes in a recent article about how government intervention has been misconstrued by those championing a small government and the disastrous results of the attack on government intervention. While he might be biased towards the government because of his liberal tendencies, his arguments in the article certainly make some sense and are worth reading considering the barrage of articles against government intervention in America these days.
He first describes the crumbling infrastructure of more and more places in America, from roads to education, which he alludes to shrinking state and federal budgets. "Tax increase" is the taboo word these days in an age whereby recovery from recession is still fragile yet "deficit reduction" is on everyone's (at least the Republicans') lips, both at the state and federal level. Even tax increments on the rich are lambasted as a crusade by the government against big business, and we learn in Economics that a disadvantage of high taxes on the upper-income brackets is the repulsion of rich businessmen towards lower-tax countries. But the tax increments could have gone to repairing and reconstructing infrastructure which the majority use, while at the expense of the happiness of "the richest 2% or so of Americans".
Krugman has all along been against withdrawing the stimulus against the recession early, warning that the recovery thus far has been fragile and it will take plenty of time and money for the economy to bounce back to where it once was. The effect of states cutting spending cancelled out the positive effect of federal government spending, and now with federal spending poised for cuts America "is going into reverse".
Krugman is especially angry with conservatives who believe that "a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right". A balanced perspective of the economist should be one that allows the free market to operate, but with guidance from the government. It does certainly seem twisted if the government is alluded to be unable to do "anything right", especially for a government like America's, even if governments of many failed states such as Somalia and Afghanistan have seemed unable to really do anything right.
In essence, time to think about what the government can do right, and not what it can do wrong.
Origins of America’s White Anxiety
By Wei Seng
Cooperate, not fight!
I covered something in relation to America's white anxiety crisis a few months back, reviewed from a Time magazine article, but it seems like now there appears to be a source of which America's white anxiety originates.
Ross Douthat in The New York Times discusses an origin of America's white anxiety: the positive discrimination that America's elite schools practice, in the process excluding many white Christians, which then creates a gap between the liberal, multiracial elite and the conservative and white Christians middle-class. It is quite an interesting observation, that while quite a bitter pill to swallow for liberals and those who believe in multiracialism and affirmative action after decades of racism, it is necessary for governments to be careful with affirmative action because any form of discrimination, positive or otherwise, would create resentment as it is happening in America today.
The chasm between the liberals (quite a significant proportion of the elite, of which many come from the top American universities such as Harvard) and the conservatives (significantly white Christian and male) appears to remain as insurmountable as ever, or even widening, with the Obama administration in the White House. Key figures in the conservative sphere have complained that the liberal administration today is practicing "racism" (preference for the coloured) and its policies a form of "reparations" (for all the past misdeeds against the coloured). Most liberals (and as a self-proclaimed liberal) I find their arguments quite silly as many of the conservatives seem to be practicing their own form of racism (against the coloured) so who started what? But it appears as if there is a source of all this discontent against the elite: the practices of elite universities in America.
According to two Princeton sociologists, a study of the admissions process and affirmative action of "eight highly selective colleges and universities" shows that the admissions procedure "seemed to favour black and Hispanic applicants, while whites and Asians needed higher grades and SAT scores to get in". I do not quite understand why Asians would need better grades, as this seems to be a form of racism as well, but I guess it is meant to be a barrier to entry for hopeful students in Asia. But it seems as if affirmative action is well at work here when black and Hispanic applicants are favoured, given that historically these people were the disadvantaged and discriminated against. But now those most disadvantaged by this process are the (racial majority) white: especially the lower-income, "rural and working-class". It is possible that universities are trying to make their racial profile look multiethnic and reserve financial aid for these students.
"Cultural biases" seem to be at work as well: "most extra-curricular activities " would "increase your odds of admission" but apparently participation in activities like Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), 4-H and Future Farmers of America would actually "jeopardise" your chances. Unknowingly or otherwise, these elite institutions seem to be "incline against candidates who seem too stereotypically rural or right-wing or Red America".
This creates an "underrepresentation" of working-class whites (particularly white Christians) in these universities and eventually in the "ranks these campuses feed into: in law and philanthropy, finance and academia, the media and the arts". According to Douthat this can breed "paranoia, among elite and non-elites alike", which is already evident from the "racially tinged conspiracy theories" against President Obama that conservatives are keen to perpetuate and exploit. Meanwhile the "highly educated and liberal", with minimal contact with "rural, working-class America" and especially with the rise of the Tea Party movement, imagine the Red American heartland to be full of evangelical theocrats and Ku Klux Klansmen.
When affirmative action backfires, are there alternatives? Singapore's practice of meritocracy might be an alternative. Even meritocracy has its own flaws, such as perpetuating inequality amongst the races (the black are, after all, still in general largely disadvantaged - poorer, less educated, more likely to be unemployed) and it would be quite impossible to be fully meritocratic (granted, these elite universities have been practicing quite a fair bit of meritocracy too). It is a tough balancing act for these elite schools, but arent these elite schools, with the cream of the crop, supposed to be able to find solutions to the problems in society? We need to challenge these schools to come out with a fair way that will allow affirmative action and yet ensure that it does not squeeze out the deserving majority.
Individualism: the source of America’s recovery?
By Wei Seng
I + You = US
In The Straits Times, the chairman of the board of trustees of Singapore Management University (SMU), Ho Kwon Ping, writes about his belief that "American individualism" will allow America to recover from its current situation and rise again, just as this same individualism has helped propel it to the forefront of the global arena.
So what is this individualism that makes America so special? While the writer finds that "excessive individualism" has this "corrosive impact" that can be damaging to both individuals and groups (companies or societies), what makes America's individualism so special is that the spirit cherishes "the sanctity of the individual and thus, meritocracy". In other words, "at its best... every person matters". There's the gung-ho of chasing one's dream, there's the respect for each and every individual no matter his race or wealth, there's the constant drive to improve oneself, through DIY. And because of this DIY spirit, Americans believe that everything has a solution, even if it seems quite "naive" to believe as such.
The writer recognises that this has its flip side, of course, but let us focus on something positive for once: using the positive aspects of American individualism to help America slowly recover from the ills currently plaguing it, such as the current oil spill in the gulf. I dont have any inkling how it could possibly be solved quickly at this stage, but with the American DIY attitude and the openness to new ideas (of which there doesnt seem to be enough of, given that the government is pulling BP along by its ears and forcing it to come up with solutions) maybe there could be a breakthrough. Maybe.
Gulf Oil Spill: America’s Fault?
By Wei Seng
It is all America's fault!
At first glance, the title of the commentary written by Matthew Lynn of Bloomberg promises to stir controversy and in particular wrath amongst Americans and environmentalists: "BP Needs to Tell Whining Americans to Take A Hike", screams the headline. I thought it was quite outrageous and audacious of him to write something like that, but after combing through the article in Today, I realised that he had a valid point, albeit only one and flashing it out in a very blunt and insensitive manner.
Of course, to tell Americans to "go take a hike" would really be a slap in the face of Americans affected by the oil spill. Livelihoods have been destroyed as fisheries become polluted, ecosystems and biodiversity continues to suffer devastation as time passes. And while employing the "spin doctor" might seem like a waste of money to BP because of the irreversible damage to environment and reputation, to not do anything would put the management of BP in a tough spot with the shareholders (though I think it deserves quite a bit of grilling for the disaster).
Lynn's reasons for asking BP to snub the Americans:
1. "US is guilty of crazy double standards" - given the huge oil consumption / addiction of America, no wonder "oil companies have to drill in more and more dangerous places" to keep up with the demand
2. BP, with its reputation "finished in the US", should just hire "the nastiest, meanest lawyers that money can buy - the one commodity the US has in overabundance". This would no doubt make the Americans choke with burning wrath, but I like Lynn's stab at America's obsession with expensive, sometimes needlessly convoluted lawsuits
3. "BP needs to protect its shareholders" so BP should sell its American assets and just withdraw from America and focus on other markets
I think the blood of the Americans must be boiling as they read this, but I think the one lesson they need to take away is to cut on the addiction to oil, or accidents like this may not be the only one. It is promising that President Barack Obama is acting on alternative clean energy sources, but there needs to be action soon and fast.