The philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer viewed stupidity as a kind of blind spot formed by psychological scarring. They believed that every human being has these blind spots and is therefore stupid about something. They saw our resistance to advantageous behaviours and outcomes—blatantly so—as a reaction to an old wound sown during childhood.
Critical Theory (as developed by Adorno and Horkheimer) therefore does not attribute stupidity to a lack of intelligence but to psychological defence mechanisms. If we take this as valid, we have to give some credit to Plato—one of the founders of philosophy—who argued that we can’t see what we are not looking at. We are all stupid because we are scarred, defensive, and can’t see it for ourselves. Society plays an important role in placing that mirror for us to evaluate our own behaviours. It is as stupid as it is helpful in letting us see ourselves.
Bearing these thoughts in mind, I couldn’t help thinking how stupid we all looked during election season—present company included. I, for one, went out of my way, against my better judgement, to predict a swing towards the then opposition Democratic Labour Party (DLP). I was stupid because some trauma from my childhood must have led me to believe that people are more rational than they seem. So I thought the use of the term “swing” was elementary. Clearly it wasn’t, judging by the calls for my head from ardent followers of the ruling party. I never said that the DLP was certain to win any seat. My sincerest congratulations go out to each and every one of you.
“Post-Covid-19” voter turnout reflected growing voter apathy. The reasons behind it are even starker. Low turnout during the pandemic seemed due to apathy, yes, but a significant part stemmed from illness and the general difficulties at the time. The same cannot be said for now. I’m left to say that the results stand as a rejection of all political parties and the first-past-the-post system—despite questionable total voter numbers published by the Electoral and Boundaries Commission (EBC).
I am one who believes you should vote regardless of your options. We will all look stupid once that right is severely infringed upon—or taken away completely. Imagine my surprise at the number of people who trusted that the EBC would operate as the older amongst us know it to be. Worse are those who felt betrayed, despite allegedly receiving circulars and/or checking online, only to learn on voting day that they were to vote at a completely different location.
People vote for all manner of reasons. A new term sprang up on the back end of the election: voter entrepreneurship. I wouldn’t have believed it if I didn’t hear it myself. It stems from stupidity and plays on it as well. The field couldn’t exist without greed but, more so, widespread and growing poverty. Poverty also scars the mind. People have to survive by whatever means, and society tries to control those means in the guise of legality. But with voter entrepreneurship, it seems as though legality may soften with time.
You can only expect people to react to their trauma, in hope of acquiring those basic needs (amongst others), as per Maslow’s theory. Regrettably, the major negative externality (indirect downside) leads to the misallocation of government resources each cycle. Cost overruns and delays are the first examples that come to mind. Investment in voter-entrepreneurship “start-ups” often has “returns” that lie outside the investor’s capacity to deliver in a timely manner. I sincerely “hope” you understand what I am implying here. You readers are by no means idiots; just stupid.
Taxpayers pay for these errors continually. Some of us refuse—stupidly—to make the connection. Public financial data is daunting, but sometimes I wish someone would altruistically create a course in public finance. This matters all the more because any three-term government is likely to show obvious forms of hubris. It’s stupid to believe otherwise; there’s too much historical and recent evidence in the region. Pick your poison.
We are blessed to have a charismatic leader in our Prime Minister. I like her a lot. She dreams big, especially where the economy is concerned. Barbados is in need of massive reform, but meaningful reform is slow and patient. Time and time again, we have witnessed steep numbers of initiatives presented in manifestos and, more pertinently, in budgets—and most are not completed within the timelines promised.
As things take time, and as you introduce more variable resources (many of them wild-carded) into projects, you should expect delays and cost overruns. I am never upset at the government for doing this if we, the people, buy into it. I’m lying: I tend to be upset when it’s clear that an initiative will threaten our foreign reserve positions or our fiscal balance—anything that leads to unjust taxation in the long run in the name of stability after bad management.
So colour me jaded about detached voters and non-voters. I have basically lost confidence that we are about to build an economy that is truly sustainable and/or explosive in growth. Maybe it’s just the case that we don’t deserve that, and we vote (or don’t vote) accordingly.
I had a hard time coming to a choice myself, seeing the stupidity around me. Every political party played to common denominators and produced manifestos with nothing bearing a timeline, except for that concerning the Barbados Republic Wealth Fund. I find the ruling Barbados Labour Party’s discussion around this a bit too careless, despite the government being in an actually “stable” financial position after a long time. My calculations on its success have been reported in the media, but that—like the 13 other initiatives—will depend heavily on the government’s ability to find credible funding sources over the next six to seven years.
Furthermore, only initiative number 14 will offer any immediate relief to the cost of living in Barbados. The others realistically cannot. Number 14, on its own, depends on the government’s ability not to overtax a growing economy over time. We know how that goes, based on experience, don’t we? Therefore, our stupidity as a nation disregards the fact that Barbados will never be a low-cost jurisdiction as presently constructed. My previous article explored the reasons why. Although I sympathise with the feeling—and the downright need—I’m not sure we are willing to take the risks needed to become a high-wage/high-cost society in the near term. Then again, maybe I’m just stupid for thinking this way.