The thing about that is, if they're ignorant, their kids will be ignorant too. And what that adds up to is just the same thing we've got: a large group of people who are subject to whatever momentary persuasion happens to reach them on any given day, and a political/ruling class that can work with that just fine, so they are taking steps to hamper education sufficiently that this can endure for an indeterminate amount of time before we all burn.
What those large populations do react to, is missing a meal or three. And so far, these aristocrats seem to understand that whatever else they try to pull, they must always service the fundamentals: bread and circuses.
I've resisted right up until this moment embracing this viewpoint, but I think we really have reached a point where every one of the old labels has lost all utility. We're just sort of passing around paper mache cargo cult effigies of things our grandparents took for granted and didn't bother to preserve for us.
Every system is perfectly designed to produce its observed results.
I don't know if you strung that set of words together yourself or read it somewhere, but I had never quite heard it put that way before. Very succinct. Sorry, I'm very into language, sentences are like flowers to me and that's a particularly nice blossom.
Re "conservatives," it's an extremely frustrating word because of how it's been misused. I took Intro PoliSci once, my teacher was an open Marxist like me, and he taught us a non-loaded, non-controversial, non-toxic definition of political Conservatism - it was along the lines of, "Conservatives believe that societal change should be done slowly, with careful consideration, with as little disruption to the existing society as possible." - and in all honesty, I once knew a few people who fit that description pretty good. They are long dead now, and I considered them devils at the time we knew each other, but I wish they were around right now, because I know we would all pretty much agree about all this bullshit - we spent a lot of time debating in places like this, and we got into a lot of what ifs. I don't believe any of them would pinch their nose for the current leader of our (Canadian) Tories.
I'm not saying, if we were to apply your maxim about "observed results" to the matter, that that is what Conservatism is "perfectly designed" to do, but that's more or less what the word actually means, and what the traditional branding of Conservatism has been; neither a desire to anachronistically cosplay the worst parts of the past, nor a desire to pointlessly harm life (another word they have barbarized to the point of uselessness), is actually an ideological feature of the traditional Conservative political body. In the 1950s the SBC approved of abortion. Look it up if you don't believe me - there was once a time when they really did believe that life was precious. Jimmy Carter was one of em.
It's the most fundamental aspect of how the modern Right uses routine gaslighting to sell their baldfaced neo-aristrocrat sceheme, because whatever individual opinions modern Conservatism might share with the GOP Nixon admin that started the EPA - an institution with a foundational intent so thoroughly conservative that they should be running CPAC - they are the ones attempting to radically change society in as short a time as possible.
If we go back to my Marxist professor's definition, my Marxist ass is generally the most conservative one in most of the rooms I occupy.
I think the people at the festival are mostly going to remember that their government is a buzzkill.