Mediocre Decisions Producing Exceptional Results

It is a self-evident absurdity.

We look at mediocrity with disdain, but by definition, we settle for mediocre decisions. We make decisions by vote of the majority. The majority is the average.

Average and mediocre are the same. The mass, the mayority can only make mediocre decisions, as the median -the average in this case- is the average intelligence, capacity, etc. of any community, state or country. Some of us act surprised by the results we get when in reality, any other outcome would be surprising.

The only way to obtain better representatives (congressmen, president, etc.) is to raise the level of our 'mediocre' population by means of education. People can only make choices with the tools (education, information and intelligence) they posses. By increasing them, we improve our chances at getting better government and a better Country as a result of the decisions that such government will make.

That is the magic of Democracy; you will have a government as good as the people can chose. We can apply this reasoning to other nations as well. When we export Democracy to nations whose populance is overwhelmingly fanatic of the religious kind (fundamentalists) they will chose such government in a very democratic fashion.

That is Democracy to them, in it's purest form. This will produce nations governed by religious fanatics, 'a la Iran'. From a non-democratic stand point: is this good for America and the Western World at large? Is this good for the planet (assuming that it wants to keep the diverse life that inhabits it, including animals and plants)?

We already decided that we have the right to posses nuclear weapons and they don't. This is not a very democratic concept, but we agreed to look the other way, as it is evident that fanatics in power should not have the option of launching nuclear weapons. Are we willing to carry this thought all the way through?

At which point we decide that we turn from a position of dominance over other people's will, to a principled posture of 'everyone deserves to live in a Democracy, everywhere'? There is a disconnect somewhere in the middle, which creates an indefensible position that becomes increasingly unpopular, dichotomy and (let us face it) unfair, hypocritical and... undemocratic. So, are we for respecting the will of the majorities, everywhere? Is Democracy the answer to all and everyone, everywhere?

Maybe we should be honest and declare that we will not allow fanatics, tyrants or (basically) anybody we don't like to have the power to destroy us together with the rest of civilization. And follow up with steps that are consistent with that declaration. Removing the secular governments of Iran, Iraq, Syria (on their own territory and in Lebanon) may not be a smart move at this point of evolution of their own people.

I suspect that previous American Administrations, wisely, helped install those governments. We should continue with that tradition. We should not break dams unless we are thoroughly prepared to deal with the ensuing flood.

Pablo Vitaver.