Reddit mentions of Enlightenment 2.0

Why Nations Fail is a classic. I haven't read Enlightenment Now but I'm not clear on what it offers that Better Angels didn't. Also one of my favourite Canadian neoliberals already wrote that book a few years before:

https://www.amazon.ca/Enlightenment-2-0-Joseph-Heath/dp/1443422525

First, thanks for your thoughtful summary of Steele's book, and of what can be done to improve Canadian politics.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading Joseph Heath's Enlightenment 2.0.

>Over the last twenty years, the political systems of the western world have become increasingly divided—not between right and left, but between crazy and non-crazy. What’s more, the crazies seem to be gaining the upper hand. Rational thought cannot prevail in the current social and media environment, where elections are won by appealing to voters’ hearts rather than their minds. The rapid-fire pace of modern politics, the hypnotic repetition of daily news items and even the multitude of visual sources of information all make it difficult for the voice of reason to be heard.

Heath's answer is that we need to slow down the rapid-fire pace of politics, to allow some time for people to think instead of just reacting instinctively and emotionally.

Looking at the idea of civic education specifically, I'm more skeptical. We live in a specialized society, where different people have different interests and expertise. Public policy is often complicated and technocratic, and thus inherently boring (unless you're interested in it, in which case it's fascinating). Politics is adversarial, and therefore ugly (unless you're a fan of conflict). Politics is slow, and therefore frustrating.

Thus I think it's unrealistic to expect that most people will ever find politics and policy as interesting as we do. They're still responsible for voting at election time, of course, but they're not going to be following politics that closely between elections. It's like following a sport: some people don't care at all, some people follow the sport obsessively, and there's a broad range of people in between.

Political scientist Anthony King describes what he calls the "division of labor" interpretation of democracy in the 1997 article Running Scared, contrasting it with the "direct democracy" view that's more prevalent in the US. He suggests that in the US political system, politicians have to spend so much time and energy on electioneering that policy suffers. The Canadian parliamentary system provides much more freedom for majority governments to implement good policy, if they choose to.

>One of these interpretations might be labeled "division of labor." In this view, there are in any democracy two classes of people -- the governors and the governed. The function of the governors is to take decisions on the basis of what they believe to be in the country's best interests and to act on those decisions. If public opinion broadly supports the decisions, that is a welcome bonus. If not, too bad. The views of the people at large are merely one datum among a large number of data that need to be considered. They are not accorded any special status. Politicians in countries that operate within this view can frequently be heard using phrases like "the need for strong leadership" and "the need to take tough decisions." They often take a certain pride in doing what they believe to be right even if the opinion of the majority is opposed to it.

>The function of the governed in such a system, if it is a genuine democracy, is very important but strictly limited. It is not to determine public policy or to decide what is the right thing to do. Rather, it is to go to the polls from time to time to choose those who will determine public policy and decide what the right thing is: namely, the governors. The deciding of issues by the electorate is secondary to the election of the individuals who are to do the deciding. The analogy is with choosing a doctor. The patient certainly chooses which doctor to see but does not normally decide (or even try to decide) on the detailed course of treatment. The division of labor is informal but clearly understood.

>It is probably fair to say that most of the world's major democracies -- Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan -- operate on this basis. The voters go to the polls every few years, and in between times it is up to the government of the day to get on with governing. Electing a government and governing are two different businesses. Electioneering is, if anything, to be deplored if it gets in the way of governing.

>This is a simplified picture, of course. Democratically elected politicians are ultimately dependent on the electorate, and if at the end of the day the electorate does not like what they are doing, they are dead. Nevertheless, the central point remains. The existing division of labor is broadly accepted.

> Joe Heath

Am gonna pick this up for when I delete all my accounts and take a break from this brain-rotting Internet machine. I assume this is the one you're talking about

https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-2-0-Joseph-Heath/dp/1443422525/