Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was almost certainly right to decide against appointing former impeached federal Judge Alcee Hastings as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. However, Representative Silvestre Reyes, her new choice for the job, seems remarkably ignorant about the basics of Middle East politics - the central focus of American intelligence efforts in the current conflict. As Jeff Stein shows in this Congressional Quarterly article, Reyes doesn't understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and doesn't know which sect Al Qaeda belongs to:
Al Qaeda is what, I asked, Sunni or Shia?
“Al Qaeda, they have both,” Reyes said. “You’re talking about predominately?”
“Sure,” I said, not knowing what else to say.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” he ventured.
He couldn’t have been more wrong.
Al Qaeda is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al Qaeda club house, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.
That’s because the extremist Sunnis who make up al Qaeda consider all Shiites to be heretics.
Later in the article, we learn that Reyes is also unaware of the fact that the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah is Shiite (an orientation that underpins their alliance with Shiite Iran, which provides most of their weapons and funding).
As Stein showed in this earlier article, congressional ignorance about the Sunni-Shiite split isn't confined to the Democrats, but is definitely bipartisan. For example, Senator Trent Lott, showing his typical insight and sensitivity, said in September that Sunnis and Shiites "all look the same to me" (quoted in the CQ article). Stein also showed that many Republican members of the Intelligence committee are as much or even more ignorant than Reyes is.
Much of my academic work deals with the dangers of political ignorance in the general public (e.g. here and here). However, the ignorance of elected officials may be just as dangerous.
In both cases, I suspect that the immense size, scope, and complexity of government is part of the problem. As I argued in the two articles linked above, it's hard for the average voter, with his limited time and effort, to keep track of more than a tiny fraction of all the government activity out there. The same seems to be true for the average congressman. It's not hard to understand the basics of the Sunni-Shiite split. However, a congressman who has to spend his time doling out pork to dozens of different constituencies, dealing with massive omnibus spending bills covering every subject under the sun, adding to the equally massive Federal Register of regulations, and overseeing hundreds of different federal agencies, can easily overlook the need to learn basics of Middle East politics. Indeed, members of Congress (even those who sit on the Intelligence Committee) probably have a much greater incentive to be knowledgeable about pork in their districts than about Middle East politics. Knowing about the former is more likely to be important to their reelection prospects.
There is no easy cure for political ignorance in Congress. I suspect that reducing the size and scope of government would help a lot by enabling Congressmen to focus on a narrower range of issues that they would then have time to study in greater depth. In the meantime, however, I hope that both Democratic and Republican leaders will try to appoint people to the Intelligence Committee who have at least a minimal knowledge of the people our intelligence agencies are supposed to be studying. A person who doesn't know that Al Qaeda is Sunni shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Committee, much less be appointed Chairman.
Ilya, suppose I showed you 20 photos of Arab Iraqis. Could you tell Sunnis from Shia, or do they all look alike to you too?
Ilya, suppose I showed you 20 photos of Arab Iraqis. Could you tell Sunnis from Shia, or do they all look alike to you too?
If you look at the context of Lott's quote, it's clear that he meant "they all look the same to me" in a metaphorical rather than literal sense. Moreover, he said this as an explanation for his lack of understanding of the Sunni-Shiite conflict. Here's the full quote:
No one can be an expert in all the various aspects of the world, let only domestic endevors, that the US government now sees fit to control. Granted, today's politicians are grossly ignorant when compared to those of generation's past--just compare their speeches to see they compare poorly in such basics as grammar, composition, logic, and rhetoric--but even "the best and the brightest" could not be expected to run the world well. Contrary to Ilya, this is not an argument for Congresswoman Pelosi to choose better; it is an argument against central planning, and for much smaller government.
I agree, and made that point in the last part of the post. At the same time, even in the current Congress, with the current size of government, there are probably people who know more about the Middle East than Reyes does.
I wonder about your idea that reducing the size of government would free up time to learn about middle east politics. Wouldn't maintaining the status quo take less time than changing the size of government?
In the short run, possibly (though it depends on how the transition is managed). In the long run, definitely not. A government much smaller than what we have at present would require a lot less time and attention to become knowledgeable about.
a) that al qaeda is sunni
b) that hezbollah is shiite
I just don't get that. You would have to live in a complete box and avoid all discussion of the middle east for years now. Though I am a libertarian(and atheist) like Ilya I disagree with him on this one that bloated government is a valid excuse. To have missed the war in lebanon completely for example, news every night on every channel, the internet news, books, and every possible discussion about 9/11.
Maybe I'm naive but in my opinion that exposure of ignorance should be career death sentence for a politician. How low is the damn bar for god's sake?!! We have young soldiers dying every day and this fool hasn't taken the time in YEARS to even glance at whats going on? No, I don't get it.
Not all that shocking, really...
I found the book “The Arab Mind” by Raphael Patai enlightening. Patai is a cultural anthropologist with great admiration for Arabs. He says right off in the Preface, “When it comes to the Arabs, I must admit to an incurable romanticism, nay more than that: to having had a life long attachment to Araby.” I say that many have criticized the work as anti-Arab. Another source for Arab anthropology is the English explorer Sir Richard Burton who made a pilgrimage (at great personal risk) to Mecca. You can download his works for free.
So basically you're saying this particular Congressional committee should have zero members.
Are you saying that you would have preferred Lott to say something like: "It's easy for Americans to understand what's wrong with these people." Doesn't that sound a little arrogant? Not to mention, just about everyone would be yelling back at him that if it's so easy, we wouldn't be having such trouble there.
I think, however objectionable some of Lott's remarks and policy positions are, the idea that it's difficult for Americans to understand and identify with non-Americans (especially non-Westerners) is neither objectionable or exceptional. It's pretty much a no-duh.
Not all that shocking, really...
I think your analogy betrays an equally profound ignorance of the topic at hand.
the shia sunni schism might be more aptly viewed as simillar to the protestant/ catholic schism only magnified tenfold and much more violent.
While the "idea" is not objectionable, the FACT, and truth even in our halls of national government, is objectionable, sad and infuriating.
To expand in Ilya's response to BGates, Lott's "they all look the same to me" is clearly not only meant in a metaphorical sense; in this context (coming from Lott) it's so cliched as to almost no longer admit of parody or satire. A WASP American (particularly from the South) protesting that he can't be expected, or be bothered to distinguish among "those people", (be they black Americans, anyone speaking a foreign language, Asians of all nationalities, or "Ay-rabs") because "they all look alike to me" is not even funny any more; it bespeaks a perverted pride in the sort of deliberate ignorant provincialism and xenophobia which led some people, in the wake of 9/11, to attack perfectly well-meaning Sikh Americans because they wore beards and turbans and therefore "looked just like Osama bin Ladin"
r gould-saltman
Patai's book is routinely scoffed at in the Middle Eastern Studies community, by everyone left of Rumsfeld. You needn't be worried by Patai's conclusions, they are the product of sloppy scholarship, arrogance, and rather a lot of projection. Where they happen to ring true, it's more along the lines of a stopped clock being right twice a day than any particularly good reasoning.
We have insipid representatives because we elect them, and we elect them, in no small part, because of a two-party system that presents us with the typical choice of Dumb and Dumber, together with an electoral system that rewards fundraising and corruption. The qualities that enable one to climb to the top of the greasy pole in 21st-century America are not, alas, those that make for a good statesman.
I think the point is more along the lines of Congressmen not really needing to be experts in the Middle East if the government, reduced in size (that is, in power) simply chose not to be politically involved with all the various warring factions there (including, of course, Israel).
I'd give a "for instance" example of my point, save for the fact that there currently is no area of human life that the government doesn't see some power and need to regulate.
Wait, I've got one: Congressmen do not need to be experts in, and would not be damaged by revelations they are not experts in, the historical details of the Crusades, since we are not currently funding or siding with one side or another of that battle, and therefore not responsible for the brutalities done under its name.
...OK, maybe not the best example...
For example, what's to suggest that the solution to this particular problem (not all the problems endemic to our government, just the problem of lack of Middle East expertise on the House intelligence committee) might not be decreasing the size of "government," but instead increasing the size of the legislature to its constitutional maximum (one for every thirty thousand citizens, per Art. I sec. 2)? This is just a simple proposition that the chance of a representative (Representative?) sample of individuals containing a single member with a given rare characteristic (in this case, expertise in Middle East politics) increases with the size of the sample.
Obviously, this is a logistical nightmare of a proposal because the U.S. population recently passed 300 million, which would parlay into a House of 10,000. The MCI Center would become the new Capitol. (Then again, given the proliferation of corporate sponsorships and naming rights into everything from sea to shining sea and everything from birth to death, there might be something symbolically appropriate there ...)
Another reform that I'm less certain would be constitutional would be a transition to party list voting away from single-member plurality districts, which could bring in more expertise by changing the dynamics of candidate recruiting: one would need to make the party electable statewide, not an individual candidate locally. This could allow party recruiters to bring in a Middle Eastern expert that would finish second in a field of two under our current system but could be the second or third (or even first) priority on a list of candidates of which the party in question is essentially guaranteed three.
One can look back across American history to times when the central government was in fact smaller, and some state governments are still quite small (e.g., Virginia). I do not see convincing evidence that this led or leads to a greater degree of expertise on the part of the average legislator on all matters within their purview, nor did it make it more likely that a legislator would be in office with expertise in a specialized and technical field like Middle Eastern politics. More often than not, the narrower legislative ambit is merely correlated with a shorter legislative session. The composition of the body itself remains quite generalist.
More cynically, there may also be quite a failure of leadership here, on both sides of the aisle. Assume that some members of the House are generally quite intelligent and could become experts, or at least reasonably well informed, on Middle Eastern politics in a fairly short time if they wished. Why would they expend the effort, however, if internal politicking is the dispositive factor in the selection process? Suppose a freshman Congressman was strongly interested in intelligence policy and hired you as a consultant to advise him of the best way to move up the ranks in that field. Would you really advise him to spend a great deal of time becoming an authority on Middle Eastern politics or history, or any other substantive field of study? I have no insider knowledge of the appointments process, but it seems from my non-expert but enthusiastic hobbyist perspective, that that is not exactly the primary qualification for advancement in the current system.
Actually, polls for decades show that they the majority of Americans would prefer government (especially the federal govt) to do less than it curently does. Even during the last election, polls showed that 54 percent thought that government is doing too much, and only 37 percent believe that it should be doing more. The majority of Americans are not libertarians, but they are willing to support significant reductions in the size and scope of government.
Ilya: "I agree, and made that point in the last part of the post. At the same time, even in the current Congress, with the current size of government, there are probably people who know more about the Middle East than Reyes does."
Granting your empirical claim, Ilya, I'm sure you agree that:
1. There really is no strong incentive for Congressmen to become knowledgeable on this sort of thing. It's not what their constitutents look for. There is, of course, a difference between genuine knowledge and intelligence on an issue and people who are better or worse in buffing up prior to a hearing or press conference.
2. It is by no means clear that Congressional committees composed of experts in the area of discussion will necessarily lead to better outcomes. If, for example, a tax committee were composed of economists elected to Congress, facing all the incentives of re-election, needing the funding of special interests, etc., it might still not report out in favor of a flat tax.
the shia sunni schism might be more aptly viewed as simillar to the protestant/ catholic schism only magnified tenfold and much more violent.
Or this betrays an equally profound ignorance about what some Protestants did to other Protestants not long after the reformation, let alone what Protestants did to Catholics and Catholics did to Protestants for a good four hundred years.
“Patai's book is routinely scoffed at in the Middle Eastern Studies community…”
I’m aware of that. But what specifically does he get wrong? I’ve too often seen “the community” get things wrong. For example the archeological community believed that pre-state people were largely peaceful, and that war was infrequent and ineffective. Now that’s completely wrong according to Keeley who presents ample evidence to the contrary. The anthropological community thinks race is merely a social construct. Once the medical community didn’t believe in blood flow rejecting evidence to the contrary. “We’d rather be wrong with Galen, than right with Harvey.” Eugenics had wide support in the 1920s. When “the community” has people like Juan Cole and Edward Said, I’m a little suspicious.
On the other hand, Sunnis have been happily massacring Sunnis for 1400 years, and the only reason Shi'ites haven't been massacring Shi'ites is because, by and large, the Sunnis were better at the massacring so there were fewer Shi'ite states to fight one another.
“Are you saying that you would have preferred Lott to say something like: "It's easy for Americans to understand what's wrong with these people."
I would have preferred Lott to not to say “what’s wrong with these people” because there is nothing “wrong” with them. They act according to their beliefs, their culture and history.
Democracy is about popularity contests. The point is not to elect experts, but but elect representatives the people like, and whom will hopefully consult experts on various issues when determining policy.
To want a congress full of experts is to want a congress which will not adequately represent the people of the US.
I'm not an 'expert'. I do obviously know the general differences between some sects of islam, but I am probably unusually interested in these things. But most intelligent people I know don't understand these things.
Democracy is about popularity contests. The point is not to elect experts, but but elect representatives the people like, and whom will hopefully consult experts on various issues when determining policy.
</blockquote>
If that's the case, however, then this entire thread is meaningless (even by blogosphere standards ...), as it is meaningless to criticize Reyes for lacking expertise if we have no cause to believe he should have it. Presumably he represented the values of the voters in his district better than his opponent; that got him into the assembly.
However, when we say we want Representatives to "represent" their districts, that may mean being represetnative of their values, but hopefully not of their actual average level of information on topics highly relevant to public policy, particularly in areas where a given Representative is going to be assigned special responsibility.
Comes back around to the common libertarian arguement for both smaller government in size AND scope. The goal to try and limit the damage they do with thier ignorant man hands.
It's a small point really, but isn't it just possible that Trent Lott's point was only that Shites and Sunnis "look alike" because they are, after all, human beings? Because the things that they have in common dwarf the things that separate them? That miniscule doctrinal differences are no reason for human beings to slaughter one another? That they are separated by abstractions, but their flesh and blood is the same?
Believe me, I'm no fan of Trent Lott, but I think too many people these days are addicted to partisan caricatures. I see this most commonly with President Bush. Ideological foes insist that every idea, every policy, every word out of his mouth is, by definition, either wrong or a lie. Remember-- even a broken watch is right twice a day. Trent Lott is probably batting about the same.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean he never says something reasonable! If the Baptists "proper" began slaughtering the Southern Baptists, would it be so egregious for someone to remind them that "they all look alike"?
I basically agree with you, and you said it very well. I don’t really know what was in Trott’s mind, but I think one needs to be careful of not only what you say, but also the way you say it. Unfortunately for him, Trott is a lighting rod for criticism, and he needs to be extra careful. Sometimes it’s better to just shut up.
Most specifically, his depiction of the "honor and shame" culture is overblown. Your average city-dwelling Arab is much less sex-obsessed, honor-obsessed, and liable to fly off the handle and maintain grudges than Patai thinks. What he got right was the tendency to cut off the nose to spite the face, but that's a tendency, not the rule, as Patai would have it.
Most of what Patai sees as cultural pathology is particular cultural artifacts they don't want to let go in the face of Western influence. It's more like the French opposition to McDonalds than anything else--an arrogant people with a glorious past find it useful to oppose the ascendant rival arrogant culture. What Patai sees as the unalterable Arab character is really just a snapshot of what the Arabs were doing in the 1970s, with a whole load of pseudoscientific psychological bullbleep piled on to support his point.
Patai offers a caricature and calls it a photograph. Worse, his extremely broad statements almost completely obscure what valid points he has--the architects of the various air-raid attack strategies used by Israel and the USA clearly read Patai where he talks about how the inability to defend themselves is shameful, but they miss the other point, which is that shame is reacted to by grudges, not by surrender. Insofar as Patai has a point there (and he sort of does), his adherents misread him into further error.
Similarly -
What is wrong with them that they are killing people of other religions, and even the same religion, because of religion? Why aren't they trying to persuade by reason, or preaching, or other proselytizing? Why killing?
That seems to be to be fair comment directed at the heart of the matter...unless one believes it is ok to kill people of other religions.
With respect to Reyes and the other "Intelligence" committee members who don't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis - given the pathetically incompetent oversight those committees have performed vis-a-vis the CIA et al., and given the pathetically incompetent performance of the "intelligence" agencies especially the CIA, why would one expect the "Intelligence" committee members to know anything about anything? Does the CIA even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and who is in Hezbollah and al Queda? One must wonder, and not optimistically.
Reps might be elected without special expertise in any particular area, but they sure as hell better get some with respect to the committees they are on if they aren't going to completely #$%@ up. Unfortunately, the results are evidence of the knowledge.
<i>Comes back around to the common libertarian arguement for both smaller government in size AND scope. The goal to try and limit the damage they do with thier ignorant man hands.</i>
I still think that that is barking up the wrong tree on this point, however. Even the most libertarian government imaginable barring an Ayn Rand topia would still be responsible for national defense, which includes the gathering of intelligence on potential adversaries. Unless you actually accept the argument that the Middle East is populated by fellow live-and-let-live libertarians (I suggest that the evidence points to the contrary), reducing our international footprint would not reduce our problems flowing from that region. "It takes but one foe to breed a war, not two ... and those who have not swords can still die upon them."
A smaller government might be able to get entirely out of the business of regulating corporate directors &officers, securities filings, banking, and many other private activities (regulatory burden). It might also be able to get entirely out of the business of providing retirement security, medical care, and subsidies for everything from farming to education to rent (tax burden). Those committees relating to national defense and foreign policy would remain, however, even in a libertarian government, as would those related to the judiciary. Therefore, the issue of the expertise of those serving on those committees would remain very much alive.
On the Lott comment I'm confused about what the error is. After all Sunnis and Shiites are two religious groups not ethnic groups so they *do* all look the same (ok their are ethnic correlations, e.g., Persian and shitte). Was this in some broader context.
That, of course, was Tocqueville writing in the 1830s when the size and scope of the federal government was much smaller. So I think that the cure for political ignorance lies elsewhere.
Is he more objectionable than Grand Cyclops Bob Byrd?
Granted, today's politicians are grossly ignorant when compared to those of generation's past
I am not so sure of this. One wonders how many Congressmen from 1945 to 1990 could have named, say, three members of the Soviet Politburo or the head of the KGB.
I would have preferred Lott to not to say “what’s wrong with these people” because there is nothing “wrong” with them. They act according to their beliefs, their culture and history.
One could say the same of the Nazis... and the Khmer Rouge... and the Bosnian Serb Army... and the Janjaweeds... and the Interhamwe... and indeed every group of humans that has ever misbehaved. There is nothing "wrong" with saying that there is something "wrong" with people, especially when it concerns a set of beliefs that represents a long-term threat to the freedom of everyone on the planet. Whether or not the US government can or should do anything about this problem is another matter entirely.
Who, exactly, says that the Battle of Karbala was mythical? I've never heard that one.
Polls also can show that Americans want fewer taxes and more services, concurrently.
Abstract beliefs are one thing; what people actually *do* in their political behavior is another.
Come now, sir, this is a well-known fallacy. Sure, they say that. But when it comes to "what would you like the gov't to do less of," it turns out that small gov't isn't so popular after all.
People also say they want Xmas to be less commercial, &then they spend more money than ever before on gifts &glitz.
Knowing the names of three members of the Politburo is not directly relevant to understanding Cold War politics unless there's a big split in the Politburo with different members doing different things.
Knowing that certain groups are Shiites and certain groups are Sunni is directly relevant to understanding the Middle East.
The Cold War analogy isn't naming members of the Politburo, but rather understanding that the Soviet and Chinese Communists didn't like each other much and knowing that certain countries or factions were pro-Soviet and others are pro-Chinese. That *is* something we would expect politicians to know during the Cold War era.
We can all agree that no one can be an expert on everything that comes before a member. But isn't this why they have staffs?
He's bad.
Rumsfeld--He's bad. M'kay?
(This would make for fun viewing on C-SPAN.)
Maybe part of the solution would be to provide those in Congress who have to deal with this subject (esp. the Intelligence committees), as well as those in the Administration and the MSM, a cheat-sheet that would lay out the following:
- The demographic (in particular, religious) distribution of:
-- The countries in the Middle East.
-- The major non-government players, including al Qaeda, Taliban, Hizb'Allah, the various Palestinian groups like Fatah, etc.
- In the case of countries, what demographic is running the country or area, and how that compares with the demographics for the rest of the country.
- Within the two major sects of Islam, the major disputes or sub-sects, and again, what countries and players are tied to which. In Shia Islam, I think this is primarily the dispute between Khomeini and Khoei/Sistani, wheras in Sunni Islam, it is more between the Wahhabis and those less puritanical.
It was always true that members of the Politburo favored different things, and thus it was always true that knowing who they were was directly relevant to Cold War politics. This was something that a responsible Congressman - e.g. chair of the intelligence committee - should have known, without question. Yet I bet they didn't.
Yeah, but just what kind of briefings are his staff giving him if he doesn't even know anything this basic? It's hard to see how even the most elementary briefings on subjects of interest to the intelligence committee could fail to impart information of this sort. Is the staff not doing its job, or is he not paying attention?
One suspects that if it's not related to jobs in his district, it goes in one ear and out the other...
Is this similar to the "well-known fallacy" that fat people want to lose weight? Do we need only to examine their unwillingness to eliminate ice cream from their diets to prove their desire to be fat?
And why exactly is that when said member of Congress might otherwise have an understanding of Al Qaeda's voiced threats, their favored methodology, successful past actions and proclaimed future goals? That Al Qaeda is Sunni instead of Shite-based has exactly what effect on the forementioned items?
It's more of a general knowledge thing. Like if someone in the 1960s didn't know that China and the Soviet Union were at loggerheads...oh wait.
River Temoc: Penny Crone has a number of books on the subject, with the thesis that Islam was retroactively invented in the 700s to explain the conquest of the Middle East by Arab tribes from what is now Jordan and the Hijaz. It's based on the total lack of written tradition before then (except for a few pieces which show that there was a leader in Medina named Muhammad around the 620s), but in my opinion, and in the opinion of most of the discipline, throws the baby out with the bathwater.
1) Who is which, so you know who's backing who
2) That this has been going on for 1400 years, so the idea that outsiders can solve it in 3 years is total nonsense
3) It's political as well as theological, so it's a grudge held by people who are very good at holding grudges.
4) It's theological as well as political, so the division isn't going to go away.
5) Both sides have holy places they care a lot about, even if the other side is the ones who live there now.
We don't need people to be able to recite the history of Karbala, Siffin, etc...just to understand these few general things about the problem, so they don't act like morons when trying to solve it.
So, that's why they keep electing people who support the opposite? I'm also a libertarian, but your opinion is not based in reality.
When the choices are consistently (a) people who support significant expansion in the size and power of the government, vs. (b) other people who support significant expansion in the size and power of the government, it is only natural that the American people keep electing people who support significant expansion in the size and power of the government...
It's rather like the definition of suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is a bad thing as long as we define it as the next guy's subdivision, not mine. They should leave. I, on the other hand, should keep my 3500 square feet on a third of an acre on a gated cul-de-sac in a gated community in good neighborhood with good schools and a two-SUV garage and several more prepositional phrases.
Although, to be fair, Southern California elects some strikingly idiotic representatives, such as the barely literate Duke Cunningham (R-Taft Federal Prison), and Mary Bono (R-CA).
In the form of selective abortion, it's poised to make a comeback! Everything right is wrong again ...
The tendency of legislators to do that with other issues they know nothing about is responsible for much of the lousy legislation and government bloat we bemoan.
If Reyes had just admitted, "I have no idea," I'd feel a lot better, as it'd show the sort of humility and acknowledgement of the complexities of the issue that has been sorely lacking in our policy, knowledge or no knowledge.
Perhaps we could limit the federal government to foreign policy and regulating truly interstate commerce. The nice thing is we don't even have to change the Constitution--just the judges.
Why would you suppose such a thing? Aside from the fact that it happens to be wrong, why would you suppose it when you can look it up? A quick search took me to politicalgateway.com where I read that:
Reyes, a Vietnam veteran and former Border Patrol agent, has been on the committee since 2001, The New York Times reported.
Not everyone in the Middle East is our enemy, but when it comes to those who are, we must know our enemies if we are to defend ourselves against them effectively. It is hard for Trent Lott, and others, to understand the dynamics of the situation we are in. Very well, let them get out of the way and let others who do understand it deal with it.
Reyes has been on the Intelligence Committee since 2001 and still has yet to so much as peruse the Dramatis Personae of the drama we find ourselves in. His only qualifications are 1) his name is not Jane Harman, and 2) his name is not Alcee Hastings. I for one demand better.
I agree that ignorance of a few critical facts that could be learned by a gradeschool student, if there were no taboos on discussing them, is unacceptable and dangerous. However, I think the size of the government today as well as the ignorance of congressmen of certain issues is a result of the complexity of the world we do in fact live in, and our state of knowledge we have about our world---a natural consequence of circumstance, not explicit policy. As such there is very little to be done about it except nag the legislators into comprehension of the issues of which they are ignorant.