On another blog I got into a bit of a dust-up on Syria.  While not really advocating for anything, I asked the writer, some one recommended high by Princeton foreign affairs pundit Anne Marie Slaughter on Twitter, why he wasn't giving much weight to the idea the fact that American voters from both parties were mildly to intensely against military intervention in Syria.  I laid out the usual concessions to the nature of a Democratic Republic and the problems inherent in foreign policy by opinion poll but still, I insisted (and insist) the public appetite for something like this should carry some weight.

The blogger answered, with reference to American Idol, that American voters are not sufficiently informed or interested to have a legitimate opinion on the topic.  The guy is a thoughtful writer and is fun to debate with.  This was one of several friendly back and forths between us.  In this case, I would say that his response seemed both sincere but uncharacteristic.

I've been thinking about this in light of our discussion with contributor Tim Danahey in which we confronted the issue of the American Sheeple.  There is a tendency that I freely admit to indulging, to assume that our ideological opponents are uninformed, corrupt, duped or simply not courageous enough to stand apart from whatever herd they happen to have mingled with through choice or circumstance.  I think this is a method of argument that we learn as children.  I look forward to identifying it when my son grows old enough to tell me that "I just don't understand," whatever it is I'm doing wrong.

Deep down, this assumption lurks within our brains.  If only other people understood the world, they would see it the way I do.  If only people could see things as they should be, I would be writing a twice weekly op-ed for The New York Times and Thomas Friedman would be a midlevel marketing person at an investment boutique.  But enough about me.  Let's talk about how to think more like me.

Jonathan Chait has a wonderful piece in New York about the national failure of Bloombergian political thought even as the man behind it has succeeded stunningly as mayor of New York City.  Bloomberg, a businessman turned politician, is an evidence-based technocrat.

"In a valedictory interview with the Atlantic, Bloomberg uttered the single phrase that best encapsulates his worldview. Following the polls, he said, is not only “not ethical” but ineffective politics, “because people aren’t good at describing what is in their own interest.” They need the Bloombergs of the world to scrutinize the data on their behalf and figure out what is in their interest. And then, even if he does something for them that they think they don’t want, they’ll appreciate him in the end."

This does happen.  Sometimes, we need leaders to tell us what's best for us and to be brave enough to tell us that what we want might not be what we think it is.  Before your kid tells you, "you just don't understand," they tell you that they only want to eat oatmeal, every meal, for a week straight.  You have to disabuse them of that.

Bloomberg's chosen successor, Christine Quinn, placed third in the Democratic primary, largely because she alienated the city by helping Bloomberg temporarily change the charter so that he could have a third term (and then change it back so that nobody else ever could.  As much as New Yorkers liked Bloomberg's results, they always resented that move (even though they re-elected him a third time, in a close election).  Quinn was punished for her role in Bloomberg's maneuver.

Chait describes Bloomberg as exasperated by questions of propriety about his third term gambit:

"Did suspending the rules to keep the boss in power have the whiff of Huey Long? Should the process by which Bloomberg went about securing his third term be weighed at all against the potential substantive benefits? The question exasperated him. The only thing that mattered was that the city would wind up with him running it rather than an inferior successor."

Now, Bloomberg is using his money to advance pet causes on a national scale and he is so far failing at it.  As he throws money at pro gun control candidates in states and districts where he has little if any personal connection, Bloomberg is being painted by his opponents as an outside meddler trying to buy elections and control the heartland from the Gomorra of the East.  Ironically, the Koch Brothers (also New Yorkers!) can contribute to the other side of the same races with impunity.  But the Kochs are making a Libertarian deal that people can live with (you keep your guns, we'll take the money) while Bloomberg is the stranger showing up to say, "let me tell you how to live your life."  It's as if Bloomberg were a door-to-door religious proseletyzer accept when you close the door on him he buys the house across the street so that he can keep showing up on your lawn every day.

Cut off from politics, Bloomberg will likely move to influence the nation through his philanthropy.  It is huge, uncontrolled and possibly dangerous for democracy. Says Chait:

"Bloomberg’s fortune is of such a massive scale that his direct campaign spending—outspending his mayoral opponents by first a three-to-one, then an eight-to-one, then a ten-to-one ratio—doesn’t even capture its full effect. Bloomberg’s charitable donations create a sector of their own, serving as a form of private patronage."

Ultimately, what will keep Bloomberg in his place is the fact that people do not like to be told what to do and that in America, while people expect their leaders to weigh the evidence, they also believe that public opinion counts as a relevant input.

Now, it may be that in aggregate, the priorities of people are worthy of criticism.  They might care more about their own lives than the lives of Syrians and they might rather watch entertainment programming than The News Hour on PBS.  At the same time, the reason they make different wine varietals is that you have a terrible palate.  Some people think Americans should bone up on their math and science.  Others say they should know more about world affairs and economics.  Maybe I think they don't know enough about poetry.

None of these judgments really matter.  The people know what they know, will learn what they will learn and they will drawn conclusions.  It does little good to ignore this and no good at all to dismiss them as dupes, sheep, or hopelessly ignorant.