We have a citizenry which can be caricatured as being increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet capable of self-government.
Leave aside the issue of what this tells us about decades of state education. I've got four replies:
1. Faculties improve with their use. We'll never be good at self-government if we never try it, just as we'll never be good at playing the guitar if we never pick one up. As de Tocqueville pointed out, in the long-run, democracy improves the character of the citizenry:
Democracy does not provide people with the most skilful of governments, but it does that which the most skilful government often cannot do; it spreads throughout the body social a restless activity, a superabundant force, and energy never found elsewhere, which, however little favoured by circumstance, can do wonders. (Democracy in America Ch 6.)
2. People respond to incentives. If their political preferences are irrational or ill-informed, the solution is to raise the cost of stupid preferences, say by using demand-revealing referenda. There's more to voting mechanisms than idly putting crosses in boxes.
3. Self-government should not be judged (only) by the technocratic quality of the decisions it produces. It is an intrinsic good, because it embodies a valuable principle, that no man should rule over another. That Taylor cannot see this only shows - yet again - how the statist left has lost touch with egalitarianism.
4. There's one effect of self-government that has been measured - direct democracy is associated with higher well-being. Processes make us happy, as well as outcomes.