More remarkable predictions from Fahrenheit 451

Prediction... such a word... is it an educated guess at the future? Or is it understanding the times and extrapolating the consequences that will result? Or is it an absolute knowledge of what will come? The Webster 1812 Dictionary says this of the word "A foretelling; a previous declaration of a future event; prophecy". Dictionary.com gives this sort of description, "The act of telling or declaring in advance." Think of the breakdown of the word "pre" and "diction." Pre means "before" and diction refers to speech. It is a speech about something before it actually occurs.

One facet of predictions however that is not as malleable as its connotations is that predictions can always be judged rather clearly once an event has already occurred. (Mind you, there are still plenty of ways to spin a story that still makes history an imperfect standard, but we operate with the tools we are given.)

Well here is what Bradbury said about the politics of the future from where he stood...
________________________________________________________________________
Woman #1
"I voted last election, same as everyone, and I laid it on the line for President Noble. I think he's one of the nicest looking men ever became president."

Women chattering among themselves:
"Oh, but the man they ran against him"..."kind of small and homely and he didn't shave too close or comb his hair very well"..."You just don't go running a little short man like that against a tall man"...."Fat, too, didn't dress to hide it. No wonder the landslide was for Winston Noble. Even their names helped. Compare Winston Noble to Hubert Hoag for ten seconds and you can almost figure the results."

Montag the protagonist:
"Damn it! What do you know about Hoag and Noble!"

One of the women:
"Well, they were right in that parlor wall (wall-sized, interactive TV), not six months ago."
_________________________________________________________________________

There is a commonly held belief that the greater number of people that vote, the greater the outcome will be. It is generally believed that an increased voter turn-out is positive.

The British Psychological Society Research Digest said, "The political parties don't agree on much but what they do all agree on is that the more people who exercise their right to vote, the better."

At International IDEA an article talks about a conference topic called "How do we increase voter turn-out?"

At the radical Garlic and Grass the author proposes making election day a national holiday and paying people to vote. That's right, pay people to vote... his example gave a figure of $100 per person.

Why did we start at "How" and skip over the "Why"?

Is it an appropriate assumption that increasing voter turn-out is a worthy goal? Why do we accept at face value that "more equals better"? Go ahead and do an internet search... Everything on the web will tell you that indeed it is such a good, noble and healthy proposition to increase voter turnout. Do you believe everything you read?

So, let's start at the very beginning, as Maria Von Trapp would say (at least in Hollywood), its a very good place to start.

What is the worldview behind wanting high voter turnout? I propose that it is generally a humanistic, evolutionary world view. Afterall, if you believe man, at his core, is naturally good, then the more "good" people you get together to voice an opinion, the better the result will inevitably be.

If however, you believe, as the Bible says, the man is inherently sinful and evil, then it does not follow that the more people you get together, the better the decision will be. The Founding Fathers did not leave us with a democracy, but with a representative republic... One government funtions on the foundational belief that man will choose rightly, the other creates checks and balances to account for depraved man.

Now I am not saying that high voter turnout is a bad thing, in itself, but I propose that it is a result of good citizens, an outworking of good citizenry, not a worthy goal on its own.

"Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens." -Daniel Webster

"Whatever makes men good citizens, makes them turn out to vote." -Rebekah Zeerip

This logic only runs one way... it does not work in reverse... a person may be a good citizen without being a good Christian and likewise a person may turn out to vote without being a good citizen.

I believe that a Biblical worldview requires us to make the distinction that more voters does not ensure a better turnout and therefore voter turnout for its own sake is a worthless goal.

But I digress... let me tie this little soliloquy off by relating it to Fahrenheit 451... Bradybury worked it so seamlessly into the dialogue of this "future world" when Woman # 1 (Mrs. Bowles is her name) said, "I voted last election, same as everyone..."

In Bradbury's world, high voter turnout has disasterous results.

Then Bradbury's women go on to discuss the candidates' physical appearances, ending their arguement with the lynchpin that their decisions were rational because they saw it on TV.

Maybe I am a statistics/research geek, but this awed me:

Here is a very recent new study from MIT (the MIT News Office just released this article less than two weeks ago) which says that beautiful/handsome candidates have an advantage over homely ones when it comes to uninformed voters...

But here is where Bradbury truly amazes... It isn't simply voters who are uninformed, but voters who are uninformed AND watch a high level of television.... Do you hear the echoes from Fahrenheit 451??? The women pick the candidate apart on his physical appearance and then cite their media exposure as proof to back them up. Wow.

So in one small page of seemingly easy dialogue of Farenheit 451, Bradbury NAILS this scene writing it in the 1950's and in 2011 MIT produces the research to back it up.

THAT'S WHAT I CALL PREDICTION!