Sorry, but it is. Without that sort of basic background, a policymaker has no basis for deciding (for example) whether "global warming" is a looming catastrophe caused by human technology, a background phenomenon that comes and goes independent of human activities, or just plain hokum.
"The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots."
--Robert A. Heinlein
MAT101 Algebra and Trigonometry for Physics
MAT105DL College Algebra and Trigonometry
MAT210 Euclidian Geometry
I said an extensive background, though (i.e., multiple college-level courses) -- you said basic. What does "basic" mean to you?
I don't buy that I, as a serious thinking person, am incapable of researching and evaluating the reality (or not) of global warming because I missed calculus and physics.
And what about my point, that extensive courses in political philosophy and history -- skipped by many in the mathematics field -- are equally valuable in the decision making process? Do you believe it should *all* be covered in depth, or that math is more significant?
PS Perhaps your reference to the three-legged stool would answer my question, you would find history/political coursework valuable on an equal par with math.