RE: Political theory: general questions

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to explain the rationale behind my comment.

"would yield better results" - who defines "better"?

I will, right here. Of course, this is my opinion. I do not suggest by offering an opinion that I have superior insight, or a path to the truth. Given that conditional prelude, here goes:

You have written in the past that you are a student of history. I also have tried to be informed about history throughout my life. It is history that helps me to understand events as they happen. Every moment in history is unique, but looking at the past, at patterns and occurrences may give a clue as to what is happening at present. It's like a doctor trying to understand an illness. Each patient and each illness is unique, but doctors look at experience, at the past, to try to predict the course of a current illness.

Having a discussion with someone who has no knowledge of the past is not a productive exercise. I can't refer to the history of Russia, to the rise and fall of autocratic governments, if the person with whom I am conversing has no knowledge of these things. I can't explain the reason rule of law was critical to the founding of my country, if the person I'm speaking with has no understanding of how the nation was founded, of the arguments between founders about the balance between the people and government authority.

Even more immediately, an understanding of how the middle class evolved in this country might inform decisions about political choices. I believe personally in unions, and I think the Progressive Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century was good. You may not agree, and others may not agree. However, that disagreement should not be premised on ignorance of changes the Progressive Movement effected, and of what the country (jobs/employment/standard of living) was like before those changes came into existence.

Representative government is based on voters expressing choice. Is it not in the interest of the nation to have that choice be informed by an understanding of issues? In the current situation in which my country finds itself, constitutional challenges are in the fore. We can all have an opinion about the importance of the Constitution and the rule of law. But that opinion should be based on an understanding of how the Constitution came to be, of the underlying arguments that led to its drafting, of the history that preceded our revolution and the formation of government.

A representative government works best ("better") if its citizens are informed and make informed decisions. That is, if its citizens are educated.

I don't want the influence of religion in my country getting any stronger

Of course people have a ideology, even if they think they don't--a set of basic principles that motivate decisions, behavior. However, organized religion is quite a different matter. Once again, I turn to history.

When my country was founded it had a long memory of the religious wars in Europe. As a matter of fact, motivation for many who came to my country was to avoid that religious strife.

In the early years of the colonies there were religious issues that spilled over from the continent. Maryland banned the practice of Catholicism. Jews were banned. Georgia had similar issues. In the Northeast, different religious sects battled for supremacy.

This is a heritage the founders of my country, those who drafted the Constitution, did not want to be part of our nation. We had enough to fight about. Taxes. Rural vs. urban. South vs. North. etc. Religion had the potential to tear us apart. Therefore, we were founded as a secular nation. The very first words in the first Amendment to our Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

You may disagree with that principle, and many people do. However, again I return to the people who founded this nation, who wrote our Constitution.

People may find the Constitution an impediment to what they want to accomplish. They may not agree that it is the one document in our nation that has to be inviolable. Once we assert that the Constitution is not the ultimate authority, then we are on the path to monarchs (autocrats,rule by fiat). You and others may believe this is a superior (rule by fiat/strongman) form of government. I don't

There are factions in my country that try to get around the first Amendment, the separation of Church and state. They talk about morality, and principle. What they mean is their morality, their principle. This is a path we've known through history. It led to strife and oppression in Europe. Our founders knew that, and they tried to protect against it.

Many years ago, when I was a child, I fell in love with the idea of my government, with the idea that it was of the people, by the people, for the people. That idea has never been perfectly (or even nearly perfectly) realized. But it is a goal.

I think a lot of voters agree with me, that we want a government of the people, by the people, for the people. What we don't agree on is how to protect that principle. An education, I believe, helps the electorate to make choices that will advance their wish to protect the kind of government they want.

There you have, a brief (!) summary of how I come to believe that an informed electorate is likely to yield a 'better' result. I also explain in this brief (!) comment why I do not want the influence of religion to grow stronger in my government.

I truly do appreciate the opportunity to expand on my views.

Thank you, @zuerich. ⭐️