The problem isn't giving the people a say; it's that the people have stopped electing smart people who do know a lot.

Certainly though, a big part of why that is is that people think they know a lot, and that their opinion should be given as much weight as any other consideration when it comes to policymaking.

Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing

(Of course there's a long discussion to be had about other contributors to this, such as lobbying and whatnot)

> Personally, I think a big driver of this belief is a tendency in the West to not challenge each other's views or hold each other accountable - "don't talk politics at Thanksgiving" sort of thing

We’re in such a “you’re either with us or against us” phase of politics that a discussion with the “other team” is difficult.

Combine that with people adopting political viewpoints as a big part of their personality and any disagreement is seen as a personal attack.

“Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex.”

― Frank Zappa

I think you’re onto something here with people thinking they know a lot, but isn’t the real issue anonymous internet posting? Having to take zero responsibility for sharing ideas has ruined intelligent discourse society-wide: Web 2.0, then social media, turned out to be the beginning of the end of experts having credibility. Journalists, scientists, all experts became demonized by persuasive bots or anonymous internet posters. Instead of a world of democratized intelligence as promised, we got a world of “anyone’s opinion is valid, and I don’t even need to know their credentials or who they are.” If we forced everyone to have to stand by everything they said online on every forum, we’d have a lot fewer strong opinions and conspiracies, IMO. People (voters) would be thinking a lot harder about their ideas and seeing a lot fewer validations of the extreme parts of themselves.

The cultural chasm between technocrats and politicians reminds me of the old trope about "women are from Venus and men are from Mars". That hasn't been bridged either, has it? It's a bit like those taboo topics here on HN where no good questions can be entertained by otherwise normal adults.

Here's something from someone we might call a manchild

For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them and quickly out again. That one does not get to the depths that way, not deep enough down, is the superstition of those afraid of the water, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. The freezing cold makes one swift.

Lichtenberg has something along these lines too, but I'll need to dig that out :)

Here's a consolation that almost predicts Alan Watts:

To make clever people [elites?] believe we are what we are not is in most instances harder than really to become what we want to seem to be.