次の英文を読んで、下の問いに答えよ。
Government and expertise rely on each other, especially in a democracy. The technological and economic progress that ensures the well-being of a population requires a division of labor, which in turn leads to the creation of professions.
Professionalism encourages experts to do their best to serve their clients, respect their own knowledge boundaries, and demand that their boundaries be respected by others, as part of an overall service to the most important client, which is society itself.
Dictatorships, too, demand this same service of experts, but they extract it by threat and direct its use by command. This is why dictatorships are actually less efficient and less productive than democracies (despite some popular stereotypes to the contrary).
In a democracy, the expert's service to the public is part of the social contract. Citizens delegate the power of decision on many issues to elected representatives and their expert advisers, while experts, for their part, ask that their efforts be received in good faith by a public that has informed itself enough – a key requirement — to make reasoned judgments.
This relationship between experts and citizens rests on a foundation of mutual respect and trust. When that foundation erodes, experts and laypeople become warring factions and democracy itself can become a casualty, leading to mob rule or elitist technocracy.
Living in a world filled with gadgets and once unimaginable conveniences and entertainments, Americans (and many other Westerners) have become almost childlike in their refusal to learn enough to govern themselves or to guide the policies that affect their lives. This is a collapse of functional citizenship, and it leads to a flood of other terrible consequences.
In the absence of informed citizens, for example, more knowledgeable administrative and intellectual elites do in fact take over the daily direction of the state and society. It has been said that the greatest danger to liberty today comes from the men who are most needed and most powerful in modern government, namely, the efficient expert administrators exclusively concerned with what they regard as the public good.
There is a great deal of truth in this. Unelected bureaucrats and policy specialists in many spheres exert tremendous influence on the daily lives of Americans. Today, however, this situation exists by default rather than by design.
And populism actually reinforces this elitism, because the celebration of ignorance cannot launch communications satellites, negotiate the rights of U.S. citizens overseas, or provide effective medications. Faced with a public that has no idea how most things work, experts disengage, choosing to speak mostly to one another.
Meanwhile, Americans have developed increasingly unrealistic expectations of what their political and economic systems can provide, and these high expectations result in continual disappointment and anger. When people are told that ending poverty or preventing terrorism or stimulating economic growth is a lot harder than it looks, they get bored and roll their eyes. Unable to comprehend all the complexity around them, they choose instead to comprehend almost none of it and then resentfully blame elites for seizing control of their lives.
Experts can only propose; elected leaders dispose. And politicians are very rarely experts on any of the innumerable subjects that come before them for a decision. By definition, nobody can be an expert on China policy and health care and climate change and immigration and taxation, all at the same time. That is why during, say, congressional hearings on a subject, actual experts are usually brought in to advise the elected laypeople charged with making sound decisions.
Americans too easily forget that the form of government under which they live was not designed for mass decisions about complicated issues. Neither, of course, was it designed for rule by a tiny group of technocrats or experts. Rather, it was meant to be the way by which an informed electorate could choose other people to represent them, come up to speed on important questions, and make decisions on the public's behalf.
The workings of such a representative democracy, however, are many times more difficult when the electorate is not competent to judge the matters at hand. Laypeople complain about the rule of experts and demand greater involvement in complicated national questions, but many of them express their anger and make these demands only after giving up their own important role in the process: namely, to stay informed and politically literate enough to choose representatives who can act wisely on their behalf. Ignorant voters end up punishing society at large for their own mistakes.
Too few citizens today understand democracy to mean a condition of political equality in which all are able to vote and are equal in the eyes of the law. Rather, they think of it as a state of actual equality, in which every opinion is as good as any other, regardless of the logic or evidentiary base behind it. But that is not how a republic is meant to work, and the sooner American society establishes new basic rules for productive engagement between educated elites and the society around them, the better.
Experts need to remember, always, that they are the servants of a democratic society and a republican government. Their citizen masters, however, must equip themselves not just with education but also with the kind of civic virtue that keeps them involved in the running of their own country. Laypeople cannot do without experts, and they must accept this reality without getting angry. Experts, likewise, must accept that they get a hearing, not a veto, and that their advice will not always be taken. At the present time, the bonds tying the system together are dangerously weakened. Unless some sort of trust and mutual respect can be restored, public discourse will be polluted by unearned respect for unfounded opinions. And in such an environment, anything and everything becomes possible, including the end of democracy and republican government itself.
1. According to this passage, which THREE of the following are true?
a. Specialists can usually be sure that their policies will be acceptable to the government.
b. Experts can make various proposals, but only political leaders can carry them out.
c. Politicians and experts have similar views of what needs to be done.
d. There is little or no mistrust of specialists among most citizens and politicians.
e. Policy specialists work mainly for politicians rather than for bureaucrats.
f. The American government was so structured as to rely on a small group of experts.
g. Most citizens are well informed about the issues and problems of representation.
h. It is important that citizens and experts believe in and show respect for one another,
i. Citizens often blame bureaucrats for the complexity of the ills faced by societies today,
j. Experts are treated in the same way by democratic as well as authoritarian governments.
k. Experts and their policies have a great influence on the everyday life of citizens.
l. Politicians have traditionally had a deep understanding of the major social issues.
m. Voters who are knowledgeable about the issues have a positive effect on society.
2. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the phrase for their part?
a. for their own personal benefit
b. making a significant contribution
c. as much as they personally desire
d. in support of their own policies
e. speaking on their own behalf
3. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the phrase by default?
a. through lack of positive action
b. through failure to explain
c. through meaningless opposition
d. through mistaken viewpoints
e. through unnecessary discussions
4. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to the phrase come up to speed?
a. master the facts as fast as possible
b. learn at a very quick pace
c. engage in speedy discussions
d. have the latest information
e. come to a common consensus
5. Which one of the following is closest in meaning to evidentiary base?
a. important details
b. factual foundation
c. questionable evidence
d. opinionated arguments
e. truthful information
6. Which one of the following best explains the meaning of they get a hearing?
a. they can listen to and discuss other proposals
b. they are able to hear what others have to say
c. they have a chance to give their opinions
d. they get the opportunity to listen to others
e. they have to present their objections to the people
7. Which one of the following can we infer from this passage?
a. Experts will probably continue to play an essential role in American politics.
b. Citizens will probably have to get rid of experts and ignore their ideas.
c. Experts will probably join hands frequently with politicians to control information.
d. Democracies will probably have to increase the power of bureaucratic specialists.
e. Elitism will probably endanger the political foundation of all democracies.
質問と回答