Philosophical literacy

On the scale of importance, which is most important of the following: scientific literacy, economic literacy, or philosophical literacy?  Which is the one that is most likely to lead people to live better lives, and to improve the disappointing and sometimes downright lousy state of the public discourse?

Googling scientific literacy returns about 70 million results.  The search box dropdown options are filled to capacity.
Googling economic literacy returns about 135 million results.  Same story with the dropdown options.
Googling philosophical literacy returns about 12.5 million results.  The dropdown options . . . well, there's only one: "developing philosophical literacy".

(Google the "illiteracy" variant of these search words and you get 3.5 million, 9.9 million, and 700,000 results respectively.)

[Edit: At the suggestion of a facebook commenter, here are google search numbers for "historical literacy": 78 million results with an 8-item dropdown list.  "Historical illiteracy" returns 5.4 million results.]

There's enough scientific and economic illiteracy to go around as it is, and there's much attention paid to these problems.  Can you just imagine the scale of human problems that arise from philosophical illiteracy?

What if the incidence of scientific and economically illiteracy can both best be explained by philosophical illiteracy?

In America's founding generation, philosophical literacy seemed to have been a pretty big deal.  From the wikipedia article on the American Philosophical Society:

The Philosophical Society, as it was originally called, was founded in 1743 by Benjamin Franklin, James Alexander (lawyer), Francis Hopkinson, John Bartram, Philip Syng, Jr. and others^[2][3] as an offshoot of an earlier club, the Junto. It was founded two years after the University of Pennsylvania, with which it remains closely tied.

Since its inception, the society attracted America's finest minds. Early members included George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson,^[4] Alexander Hamilton, James McHenry, Thomas Paine, David Rittenhouse, Nicholas Biddle, Owen Biddle, Benjamin Rush, James Madison, Michael Hillegas, John Marshall, and John Andrews.

This listing includes all of what I term the "Big Seven" of the American Founding: Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Washington.

What are the chances that if these men were not of the sort who took philosophy as seriously as they did, that the American Founding would have happened as it did?

And what does our answer to that question imply about the quality of our political "leadership" today, or the political discourse in general?

[Addendum: I derive some of my inspiration for my abrasive language in my politics-related postings from Cole Robinson, the Snake Diet Wizard, who gets crazy weight-loss and health results.  As he pointed out recently, every time he says the word "fuck" in his videos, someone loses a pound.  (Every time he says "fat fucking pig," 10 pounds probably get lost.  I'm not shitting you.  Follow up with your own research if you don't believe me.  He is apparently showing just how nutritionally illiterate even the medical establishment is.  Do you know how much nutritional training med-school students get?  Would it sound to you, dear layperson, like it makes a travesty of the idea of medical school if such training is minimal there?)  The political realm as we know it is where a bunch of philosophically (as well as scientifically and economically) illiterate assholes get together and decide how much of their preferences to impose by force one everyone else.  Wouldn't America and the world benefit from one or more Philosophical Literacy Wizards to whip it into shape?  Who might be among the leading candidates for such an informal position, if you had to guess?  Who among them has even heard of Cole Robinson or the Snake Diet, as a sprawling research program might lead one to?  Who among them specifically and explicitly addresses the topic of philosophical literacy and its importance to human flourishing, and at least ponders how a comprehensive program for philosophical education might be implemented?  In this context there is one question just begging to be answered: why isn't even the philosophical community all gung-ho and loudly activist for the idea of philosophy for children?  It's right there in the SEP, ffs, a no-brainer, an idea with only good arguments for and none against.  I mean, philosophy instructors spend enough time as it is having to deal with philosophically illiterate college students, so wouldn't they prefer their students to come to the college already well-prepared for serious instruction akin to, oh, say, Plato's Academy?  What is the holdup?  What if professional hyper-specialization, not focused on the spread of philosophical literacy ASAFP, actually leads to less optimal research time and outcomes for those very specialists?  What's all that research and study good for, anyway, if 90% of the population suffers from lack of philosophy?  (I mean, I hardly know jack shit about, oh, say, set theory (yet...), but I have given a considerable deal of explicit/specific thought to the topic of better living through philosophy and what that entails for human cultural practice.  In this context, the ideas of Rand are a higher study/research priority than those of Russell, given my time and mental resources.)  Surely an ethical issue arises here....]