Don’t Know Much About Politics?

Why do so many people vote for political figures who prefer to serve the wealthy elite rather than deal with the problems afflicting everyone else?  How come vast numbers choose not to vote for politicians who actually have a track record in helping those in need and improving the quality of life for the general public?

Alas, all too many people just don’t know much about politics.  They are fed lies, surrounded by tabloid mood music, misled by demagogues, and have rarely – if ever – learnt much about the real pros and cons regarding the policies being debated in the media.

Would it help if we have more political education to enable citizens to learn about public issues and how state power is obtained or used?  Of course it would.  But that is also why there is a growing number of Con-minded politicos who thrive on voters being misled – witness recent Conservative Education Secretaries in the UK and Republican governors and legislatures in the US – who have manoeuvred to hamper objective learning of many issues central to political deliberations.

For example, for schools, they invoke the notion of ‘contentious issues’ to stop any teaching which may increase pupils’ understanding of issues (such as tackling racism or climate change) that they would prefer to leave mired in false and misleading exchanges.  For universities, they cite ‘academic freedom’ as the reason why no one – be they white supremacists, rampant misogynists, or militant homophobes – should be denied the opportunity to promote their views on campus.

Politicians concerned with the safeguarding democracy from widespread lies and malicious distortion must take urgent action to ensure citizens can learn objectively about matters relevant to political decisions.  They must stop those who serve plutocratic and/or fundamentalist interests from abusing the law to designate any topic as too ‘contentious’ to teach just by contesting widely shared claims.  And just as academic freedom does not entail that any baseless allegation or thoroughly discredited theory can be promoted as worthy of consideration, all learning institutions must be allowed to apply their peer-validated expertise to adjudicate what ought or ought not to be disseminated.

Con-minded politicos want to pretend (when it suits them) that all expressions are equally entitled to be aired – except for when they touch on those ‘contentious’ issues they want to silence.  In reality, the scientific community, the legal system, the established professional bodies, the peer-scrutinised researchers, the networks of accredited experts in diverse fields, provide multiple means of differentiating between reliable claims and unwarranted assertions, acceptable evidence and fanciful imaginings, sound advice and life-endangering falsehoods, across countless topics.

We all rely on these impartial means, and society simply cannot function without them.  Only the most shameless charlatans can spout with a straight face that ‘academic freedom’ means anything goes, or they alone know what must be taught and what must be banned.  By contrast, educators draw from the expertise and findings of the different bodies and systems in existence to help share with learners what at any given time are deemed instructive to share, and what groundless claims and misinformation should be kept at bay.  Applying this approach to the teaching of political issues is something we need more than ever.

--

Who’s Afraid of Political Education? Edited by Henry Tam is now available from Policy Press: https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whos-afraid-of-political-education