Conservatives have been increasingly critical of enlightenment ideals that have inspired the progressive movement since the early 20th century...that's pretty clear. What I have a difficult time reconciling is the extent to which progressives themselves appear to have lined up against enlightenment ideals by supporting critical race theory's attack on ideals such as reason, logic, objective decision-making processes (such as science) which critiques these processes as a form of white knowledge production that, among other things, underpins systemic white supremacy.
The Soviet-era marching ditty "Siroka strana moia raz'naya" comtains a line "One man is worth as much as another." I sang it full-throated, being a god pioneer (uttoro), but even then we all called this a crock. So, after decades on the left and as many decades on the right (such as it is in the US), I simply ask this: Do you believe that a vote cast by, say, Bill Gates is worth no more than one cast by the street-corner druggie who is proud of knowing nothing of the issues?
If one were to slightly rephrase your last sentence in the abstract, would this still accurately reflect your question?
"Do you believe that a vote cast by a person who carefully studies the issues and candidates is worth no more than one cast by someone who is proud of (or at least unconcerned by) knowing nothing of those?"
I'd intuitively think that the first person's votes are more skillful and informed one than those of the second person. And that's irrespective of whether one or more of the parties involved might include a billionaire with long experience in business, or if they were middle-class or poor. (And also entirely orthogonal to their additions, to drugs or otherwise, unless that materially impaired their process of studying or voting.)
Having acknowledged that very real difference in the quality of votes cast, it's difficult to conceive of a system where such well-intentioned effort in "studying up" before casting one's votes could be appropriately recognized and elevated within an electoral process? (Maybe you or others might have some suggestions here?)
However, something akin to that is the very nature of sortition, as contrasted with traditional electoral voting: choosing a group of citizens by lot, providing them with relevant information about an issue, and asking them to make or help make societal decisions based on that informed decision-making. (That's much how the American criminal, civil, and grand jury systems work, for instance.)
Conservatives have been increasingly critical of enlightenment ideals that have inspired the progressive movement since the early 20th century...that's pretty clear. What I have a difficult time reconciling is the extent to which progressives themselves appear to have lined up against enlightenment ideals by supporting critical race theory's attack on ideals such as reason, logic, objective decision-making processes (such as science) which critiques these processes as a form of white knowledge production that, among other things, underpins systemic white supremacy.
Sadly, conservatism through history has often been "freedom for our rich and privileged group" behaviours and interests
The Soviet-era marching ditty "Siroka strana moia raz'naya" comtains a line "One man is worth as much as another." I sang it full-throated, being a god pioneer (uttoro), but even then we all called this a crock. So, after decades on the left and as many decades on the right (such as it is in the US), I simply ask this: Do you believe that a vote cast by, say, Bill Gates is worth no more than one cast by the street-corner druggie who is proud of knowing nothing of the issues?
If one were to slightly rephrase your last sentence in the abstract, would this still accurately reflect your question?
"Do you believe that a vote cast by a person who carefully studies the issues and candidates is worth no more than one cast by someone who is proud of (or at least unconcerned by) knowing nothing of those?"
I'd intuitively think that the first person's votes are more skillful and informed one than those of the second person. And that's irrespective of whether one or more of the parties involved might include a billionaire with long experience in business, or if they were middle-class or poor. (And also entirely orthogonal to their additions, to drugs or otherwise, unless that materially impaired their process of studying or voting.)
Having acknowledged that very real difference in the quality of votes cast, it's difficult to conceive of a system where such well-intentioned effort in "studying up" before casting one's votes could be appropriately recognized and elevated within an electoral process? (Maybe you or others might have some suggestions here?)
However, something akin to that is the very nature of sortition, as contrasted with traditional electoral voting: choosing a group of citizens by lot, providing them with relevant information about an issue, and asking them to make or help make societal decisions based on that informed decision-making. (That's much how the American criminal, civil, and grand jury systems work, for instance.)