One of the themes we start classes with is the need for an educated public to be the backbone of a democratic republic, but there's an argument to be made that there's little incentive for people to become fully aware of political matters and that there is a minimal level of information that a typical citizens can obtain and still be a functioning citizen. Further, it suggests that it is perfectly rational for citizens to decide that educating oneself about a public matter beyond what that would benefit them, is perfectly fine.
The concept is called rational ignorance and has its origins in public choice theory, which attempts to look at the decisions people make as a product of rational self-interest. It takes a realistic look at how people in fact make decisions as opposed to the way that people ought to make decisions, which is more in line with approach of the founding generation. I'm not sure the founders would have seen this more than an excuse to ignore public matters and perhaps a justification for private corruption - and effort to see what each of us can gain out of the system individually rather than collectively. I assume that why they call it public virtue, or civic virtue.
I throw that out to put some of the latest findings in the world of political ignorance in context. There are some that argue that there's little reason for people to have background on some of these matters, but it can lead to problematic collective decision making:
- Public Ignorance about Paul Ryan.
- Public Ignorance about Federal Spending.
- Down with the people.
- Scientists share blame for public’s ignorance of science.
