Imperfect Information in Politics

I want to explore the role of excessive rhetoric in society. For the record, I do not believe that the shooting in Tuscon had anything to do with political rhetoric, which is in line with what the majority of the American population believes. I cannot say that inflamed rhetoric that invokes violent imagery will never lead to violence, but I not overly concerned by it. Our country is strong enough to absorb or prevent random acts of individual violence, and even coordinated attacks by groups. I am not concerned over the idea that excessive rhetoric makes us less civil to one another, though like violence, that may be a problem. I am much more concerned that, as Palin suggested, people are "taking up arms" by going to the ballot box, and making very important decisions based on this rhetoric.

In markets, correct information is valuable. Market inefficiencies come from people having "imperfect information." Making decisions based on that imperfect information, for example, by investing in Enron in 2001 based on the assumption that it was earning $101 billion in revenues, or mortgage backed securities based on the assumption that they less risky than they actually were, could lead to huge financial loss for the decision maker, not to mention the entire market if millions of people are using this false information. Of course imperfect information is inevitable, but people who want to make good decisions for themselves have to learn to as much correct information as they can.

The political system acts the same way. People voting for politicians who make false claims that their government has become socialist, or that health care reform is going to kill their grandmothers, will lead to policy based on imperfect information, and this will lead to huge problems that will affect our country much more than isolated shootings or lack of civility. Democracy does not work without an informed citizenry, and the problem with the excessive rhetoric I've seen and read about is that it misinforms the public, and they are vulnerable to making very poor decisions.

I do not want liberals to be bogged down having to explain how excessive rhetoric led to Tuscon, or that it makes the country less civil. I want it to be denounced based on the idea that it is much more harmful to our political system and our country than any random shooting.