Cal Thomas Says American Voters Clueless

[Gary Sisco]

and I have to agree (frightening as it is to agree with a trog like Thomas):

Cal Thomas

Ignorant voters
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | During this soon-to-be-over (thankfully) political season, there have been those who, in the heat of debate, have told people of a different political persuasion, "You don't know what you are talking about." There is now evidence that backs up that claim.

A new Cato Institute study conducted by Ilya Somin, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University, concludes that voters are ignorant about the candidates and their positions and do not know enough about the issues to make an informed choice on Nov. 2.


Somin has compiled his analysis from several studies, all of which reveal a lack of knowledge by a majority of voters. He cites one study that showed 70 percent of respondents did not know that Congress recently passed and President Bush signed a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and that 58 percent said they knew "nothing" or "very little" about the controversial USA Patriot Act, despite a slew of TV commercials by the American Civil Liberties Union denouncing it.


How can people in a free society properly judge candidates, policies and issues if they know little or nothing about them beyond the images concocted by skilled media manipulators? Somin writes, "Informed voters must have at least substantial understanding about which of the available policy options are most likely to advance their goals."


Somin adds, "Particularly significant is the fact that, on many issues, the majority is not only ignorant of the truth, but actively misinformed. For example, 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of jobs in 2004, 58 percent believe that the administration sees a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and 57 percent believe that increases in domestic spending have not contributed significantly to the current federal budget deficit."


The Bush administration has repeatedly denied a link between 9/11 and Saddam, but this fact is not getting through to most voters, and job growth continues upward.





Widespread voter ignorance is not a recent phenomenon. One month after Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, 57 percent of Americans had never heard of the architect of the takeover, Newt Gingrich, despite massive press coverage. In 1964, at the height of the Cold War, only 38 percent were aware that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.


"Most of the time," writes Somin, "only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."


Somin then makes this shocking and depressing statement: "Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information."


Politicians know this and so they often seek to restrict the flow of information to voters, preferring poll-tested buzzwords and assertions about the patriotism, faith or honesty of the other candidate. But, as Somin concludes, "Ill-informed voters attempting to make political judgments on the basis of personal experience may fall into egregious errors."


Most people feel overwhelmed when they think about government. Government, especially the federal government, is so large and seemingly remote from average people (except when they want our money) that most people apparently believe that neither their thoughts nor their votes can change much. Perhaps if government were smaller, more manageable and more citizen-friendly, more people would care.


The Cato study is a shocking revelation of the lack of political depth in the country at a time when knowledge was never more needed. "An informed electorate is a prerequisite for democracy," writes Somin. It follows that the opposite, ignorance, is the prerequisite for domination by the few. This is why pollsters need to go deeper when they ask voters their opinions on issues and candidates. Are their positions informed, or are they reacting to images and impressions?


If ignorance is bliss, there are going to be a lot of happy voters on Nov. 2. Such ignorance has serious implications for the health and welfare of a constitutional republic.




Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

[patricia]

Frightening, though not surprising to me.

[claude]

Originally Posted by patricia

Frightening, though not surprising to me.

In my experience it's no better on this side of the border..

[Gary Sisco]

So call me an elitist, but I do actually question today whether it's a very bright thing to have universal sufferage in a society that is purposefully and willfully ignorant on such a scale.

I find myself thinking that the only thing bad about the old citizenship tests was the way they were racially or otherwise prejudicially administered.

My take today is that, given an un- or miseducated population, democracy probably isn't such a bright idea. And none of its philosophers ever advocated it based on a less than educated population. That would include the sacred Founders. (Sounds like Planet of the Apes the way these guys are fetishized today .....).

[Noj]

I can understand it--it is so difficult to make ends meet that it is not practical for a lot of people to stay up on what's happening in politics. There is no readily available source for all the information--it must be sought.

Another problem is the information is so gummed up and wordy, it's like trying to read stereo instructions. They've complicated it all into such a mess that it requires interest to bother figuring out what's going on.

Who is involved in politics? Rich folks with degrees and time on their hands.

[claude]

Gary, my wife and I had this same discussion during our last federal election up here. We were thinking that there should be a qualification process in order to be elegible to vote, some sort of test. I don't know how it would be administered (I certainly wouldn't want the government to decide who is eligible to vote), but we either have to do a better job of engaging people or find another way to elect our leaders.

[patricia]

I think that it's more simple than that. I think that the populations of both Canada and the United States have become so used to a paternalistic government, that they trust the government to think for them.
I compare it to when I was a child and had no important decisions to make, because my dad and mother made them for me. Life was good.
But, at some point, just as in our family structure, the child must put aside the insulation of childhood and take responsibility for the ultimate direction their life will take.
Up until now, we, as citizens of both Canada and the U.S. have trusted the big decisions to our politicians, assuming that they were putting us first, and the safety and reputation of our countries first. That is their job. We, some of us, never in our wildest nightmares considered that corrupt governments, given the freedom we have given them to make decisions for us, would use that trust to establish tyranny. They haven't yet, but they always could, but chose not to. Until now.
But, like children, many of us still trust that everything is going to be fine and that the designated surrogate father, George Bush, will look after things and peace will come to the world, simply because he says it will.
Being unarmed with truth, especially now, is the most dangerous state to be in that I know.
Democracy is not static, but must be protected by the people, because the trust and the power given to politicians is so easy to misuse.
Freedom is a double-edged sword and the power it gives decision-makers is too all-encompassing to just take for granted.
November 2 is the only time that the people can tell the politicians what they, the people. want.
This is one fine kettle of fish and I am doubtful that there is an informed public who can sift though the B.S. and make the decision which will affect their lives, profoundly, for at least the next four years.

[Rob C]

If only people would watch Crossfire...!

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Rob C

If only people would watch Crossfire...!

Or read once in a while.

[lynn]

You can't really blame the voters when their candidates lie to them to get elected. You can blame voters who reelect the same liars.

Interesting commentary on BBC radio this morning. More people actually care more about Bush's born againness than they do about his crappy record and the obvious falsehoods he has hoisted on the country.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally Posted by patricia

I think that it's more simple than that. I think that the populations of both Canada and the United States have become so used to a paternalistic government....

I didn't want to re-post your entire post, but that is a wonderful, clear, and very real post. I need to quote most of it to my clueless right-leaning knee-jerk reactionary friends. Maybe they'll wake up.

[Enforcer]

Don't worry, we don't have to be too concerned with issues or actual platforms. The important thing is that, during the TV debates, the candidates' body language tells us pretty much all we need to know.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by patricia

I think that it's more simple than that. I think that the populations of both Canada and the United States have become so used to a paternalistic government, that they trust the government to think for them.

Yes!!

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dennis Gonzalez

I didn't want to re-post your entire post, but that is a wonderful, clear, and very real post. I need to quote most of it to my clueless right-leaning knee-jerk reactionary friends. Maybe they'll wake up.

I don't think that I have ever received a greater compliment. Thank you, Dennis.
I have always been surprised that all parents were not like my parents, political junkies. They read everything. They voted in every election, municipal, provincial and federal and insisted that my three brothers and I do the same.
They drilled into us a sense of personal responsibilty for the kind of country in which we wanted to live and that it was within our reach, if we participated in the process, as is our right and our duty.
I know that I frustrated my parents during the sixties, with my continuous questions about the war, ongoing at the time in Vietnam, if only because the historical material about the events leading up to it were in the house and freely available to me to read.
Political knowledge, particularly in a democracy, is immensely important to anyone who truly wants to be a participant in their own lives. We, unlike citizens of many countries in the world have a say, but inexplicably many choose to not be bothered.
These days, with talk of bringing democracy to formerly dictatorial regimes, we might want to pay attention to what is happening to democracy, participation of the people, in our own countries. It's very troubling to me to be asked to scale back on freedoms fought so hard for, by our fathers and grandfathers, with no promise that they will be restored. These are the people who lied about the reasons for launching a war, killing thousands of people. Can they be believed anymore??
Do we really want to live in an armed camp, instead of asking why it is that it's necessary and whether the situation can be resolved with something other than wholesale death and destruction??
I don't know. But I do hope that whether someone votes for one or the other candidate is basing their decision on something other than whether or not they "like" the candidate. Many great world leaders were not particlarly likeable. I depend on my friends to be likeable. I prefer my leaders to be capable, diplomatically astute and intelligent. Maybe that's just me.

[clinthopson]

Again, patricia shows her wisdom.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Again, patricia shows her wisdom.

I'm not at all wise about a lot of things. I trust my friends too much sometimes. But, I NEVER blindly trust politicians. They have more power than we ever thought we gave them. Because they choose not to use it in most circumstances doesn't mean that they don't have it. WE gave it to them, almost as a sacred trust. They betray us, when they use it to gain personal power and prestige for themselves, by not caring about the death and destruction created by their actions.
It is up to us, always, to remind them that THEY WORK FOR US.

[Enforcer]

You can blindly trust me, patricia. Have I mentioned that I make a great guacamole dip?

No salesman,
Larry

[groover]

Someone sent me this article recently, which seems relevant to this topic.

The S factor explains Bush's popularity

Monday, January 5, 2004

By NEAL STARKMAN
GUEST COLUMNIST

Millions of words have been written as to the motivations of voters. Particularly in close elections, as in the 2000 presidential contest, pundits and laypeople alike have speculated on why people voted for whom. The exit poll has been a major tool in this speculation.

But the speculation misses the mark by far. It's increasingly obvious, for example, that none of the so-called theories can explain President Bush's popularity, such as it is. Even at this date in his presidency, after all that has happened, the president's popularity hovers at around 50 percent -- an astonishingly high figure, I believe, given the state of people's lives now as opposed to four years ago.

What can explain his popularity? Can that many people be enamored of what he has accomplished in Iraq? Of how he has fortified our constitutional freedoms with the USA Patriot Act? Of how he has bolstered our economy? Of how he has protected our environment? Perhaps they've been impressed with the president's personal integrity and the articulation of his grand vision for America?

Is that likely?

Granted, there are certain subsections of the American polity that have substantially benefited from this presidency. Millionaires and charismatic Christians have accrued either material or spiritual fortification from Bush's administration. But surely these two groups are a small minority of the population. What, then, can account for so many people being so supportive of the president?

The answer, I'm afraid, is the factor that dare not speak its name. It's the factor that no one talks about. The pollsters don't ask it, the media don't report it, the voters don't discuss it.

I, however, will blare out its name so that at last people can address the issue and perhaps adopt strategies to overcome it.

It's the "Stupid factor," the S factor: Some people -- sometimes through no fault of their own -- are just not very bright.

It's not merely that some people are insufficiently intelligent to grasp the nuances of foreign policy, of constitutional law, of macroeconomics or of the variegated interplay of humans and the environment. These aren't the people I'm referring to. The people I'm referring to cannot understand the phenomenon of cause and effect. They're perplexed by issues comprising more than two sides. They don't have the wherewithal to expand the sources of their information. And above all -- far above all -- they don't think.

You know these people; they're all around you (they're not you, else you would not be reading this article this far). They're the ones who keep the puerile shows on TV, who appear as regular recipients of the Darwin Awards, who raise our insurance rates by doing dumb things, who generally make life much more miserable for all of us than it ought to be. Sad to say, they comprise a substantial minority -- perhaps even a majority -- of the populace.

Politicians have been aware of this forever; they cater to these people. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. They evade directed questions with non-sequiturs. They offer meaningless, jingoistic pap instead of thoughtful policy. And these people, the "S" people, eat it all up with a ladle.

I don't have a solution to this problem. To claim I did would belie my previous arguments. But I do have some modest suggestions that might provide a start for discussion: an intelligence test to earn the right to vote; a three-significantly-stupid-behaviors-and-you're-out law; fines for politicians who pander to the lowest common denominator and deportation of media representatives who perpetuate such actions.

It's well past time that people confront this issue, no matter who's offended. We are on the way to becoming a nation of imbeciles. I'm certain that a plethora of "George W. Bush" jokes is already being circulated in every capital of the world. We can stop this sapping of our national integrity but we must do it soon, lest the morons become the norm and those of us who use our brains for more than memorizing advertising jingles are ourselves ostracized from society.

Let's start talking. Let's bring the S factor out of the closet and into the daylight where we can all see it, gulp at its hideousness and finally make serious attempts to bring it to bay.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Gary,

Nothing in the article surprises me, except for the fact that Cal Thomas wrote it. After all, his prefered party is in power and maybe the things he complains about are the reasons they are running things.

However, I can't disagree more with you about litmus tests for voting (other than age). I'd be more afraid of a society where some ruling elite decides who is informed enough to vote. It's way too open for abuse. I'd rather stumble along with our flawed system as it is and hope for the best.

To be honest, I don't know what the answer is. I can't remember being taught about civics and the responsibilities of citizenship in grades K-12 in school. Maybe that's a beginning.

[Rob C]

The "S Factor" is funny, and I'm sometimes inclined to agree with it, but truthfully, I think it's the "I Factor"--for "ignorance". A different concept than stupidity. Darryl's prescription of grade school civic responsibility lessons would be a start.

(Though of course does anyone believe school is meant to teach kids how to think? It should be, but in reality school is geared more toward teaching kids how to be "good citizens" in the sense of cogs in the machine....)

Patricia's note that "they work for us" reminds me of how I felt at all the fawning over Reagan's corpse. American "leaders" should never be deified by anyone. Leave that stuff to the totalitarian governments. Our "leaders" are in fact merely our representatives, though that's not a concept that is often reinforced.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Rob C. makes a good point. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance, or in this case, willful ignorance.

As I've said in other posts, I work in an IT environment of computer professionals and software developers. Most have at least bachelors, a few post grad degrees. So they're not stupid (if you believe in book-learning as a test). But I've heard them repeat some of the most simplistic pap in regards to the situation in Iraq. And you'd be surprised how influential radio and cable talk shows are. The thought of actually reading a newspaper or seeking alternative information on the Internet is beyond them. My team lead doesn't vote Democrat because "they want to take my guns away". That's it. As a hunter he doesn't think about the rollbacks in environmental protections would od to the places he wants to hunt. Or the overdevelopment of the DC area.

Politics or its effects on their lives doesn't go beyond "cutting my taxes". In otherwords, unless an issue blatently affects them, they don't care. Like one of the articles stated above, cause and effect is meaningless to them.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Politics or its effects on their lives doesn't go beyond "cutting my taxes". In otherwords, unless an issue blatently affects them, they don't care. Like one of the articles stated above, cause and effect is meaningless to them.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about that lately. There are people who disagree with me who bring a lot to the table in a discussion. It comes down to a philosophical difference, and those kinds of debates and conversations are interesting and worthwhile to me. But the average person I know is poorly informed and votes strictly based on how it affects her. I mean, what the f**k is that? Is there no consequence to feathering only your own nest? Won't a neglect of all the other problems eventually roll down hill and end up f**king up your own life?

I guess not. Why bother voting? Until they put a Larry Bill on the ballot, which apportions lots of other people's money and property to me, I can't think of a reason to get involved with my community.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

You can blindly trust me, patricia. Have I mentioned that I make a great guacamole dip?

No salesman,
Larry

Larry, you did indeed mention your skillful mastery of the art of guacamole dip-making and don't think I'm not impressed. A man who can make guacamole AND loves hockey is indeed a rare and wonderful thing.

You mentioned that people don't care if politics doesn't seem to directly affect them. I was watching somebody read the paper at a coffee shop a while ago and was facinated. He was a nicely dressed youngish man and seemed outwardly functionally literate, I thought.
This is what he did:
He lifted the first two sections off and neatly set them aside, without even glancing at them.
The third section was the sports section. He read every page.
He then folded that up and put it with the front sections, still unread. He read the black and white comics and the cars for sale in the classifieds.
The back page has horoscopes and he read that.
At first I thought that he must be in a hurry, but he sat there for at least another twenty minutes, staring at nothing.

So, being me, I asked him why he didn't read the front sections and this is what he told me:
"If world events concern me directly, they'll phone." I like to think he was kidding, but I really don't think he was.

More typical, I think, than we want to think.

[walto]

How nice it always feels to be smarter and better and than everybody else! Thanks, Cal and Gary!!

[Coda]

That article sure makes the case to keep the Electoral Vote.

Here is another article along the same lines, but this time Europe is in the cross hairs:

By David Asman

We wish we didn't have to keep presenting examples of how the European media have become obsessively anti-American.*But they keep pushing the barrier, now to the point of absurdity.
Tonight, BBC2 begins a three part series, the essence of which is that the U.S. fabricated the terror threat.

Forget 9/11. Forget the Madrid bombing. Don't get riled about bio-weapons or radiation bombs.

Even the name*Al Qaeda was just made up by the CIA and the Justice Department to prosecute undesirables.

"In fact, it [Al Qaeda] barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence."

The most absurd part of the program, called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," is tonight's episode, in which the filmmaker claims that a dirty bomb exploded in a crowded city would "not be life-threatening."

He quotes a so-called radiation expert: "I don't think it would kill anybody."

The filmmaker received a glowing review in (where else?) The Guardian, in which he said that the terror threat is just like the phony threat of communism during the Cold War.

"In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

So democracy and freedom have lost credibility, and Al Qaeda's just a phantom ... that's the view from BBC, folks …

[clinthopson]

I ask the Shrub supporter I know if they have read the 9/11 report or complete summaries at least. Have they read the Patriot Act? Have they read a summary of Shrub's, Cheney's and Rice's statements leading up to Iraq and the flip floping afterward?

Duh

[Noj]

Stop it Clint! Bush is steadfast and resolute, haven't you heard?

I paid attention the whole time. I feel misled. Period, end of discussion, Bush won't get my vote for re-election, I'll vote for FrankenKerry just to see him removed.

[GoodSpeak]

Cal Thomas Says American Voters Clueless

Indeed they are.

They keep voting republican because abortion is the ONLY issue facing Americans. Dick Cheney told me so.


[I wonder how his daughter feels about this subject....hmmmm.]



Go figure...and thank you JEE-Zus!!!

[Gary Sisco]

Walto -- Being ignorant isn't the same thing as being stupid or unintelligent in a native sense. Especially the kind of willful, purposeful ignorance we're faced with here. Plenty of ignorant people are a lot smarter than I am. Plenty of smart people are a lot more ignorant than I am. I'm not talking about genetics or aptitude, but knowledge.

And in this country -- and whatever else can be said for it, it is in fact the most open society in history, where the people can know anything at all that they want to know, and with very little effort, at that -- there is no excuse for it.

And the worst excuse of all is how hard it is to make ends meet. Bullshit. It wasn't exactly easy to make ends meet in 1776, I'll remind people. If you didn't own slaves (or profit from others owning them), your ass was working harder and longer hours than any American alive today ever will or ever has. That's such a lot of shit. Only one generation ago -- forget about centuries ago -- my folks worked a hundred times harder than any of their descendants ever will. That's all a load.

Hell, if I'm to believe the results of countless studies I've read, a whole hell of a lot of Americans spend more time watching television in any given week than they spend working (and I *know* that many people spend more time fucking off at "work" than they spend working -- this bbs, in fact, is one of millions of examples of that).

I've heard thousands of Americans loudly brag about how they never watch the news and never read newspapers. "It's all bad news, anyway." "It's too depressing." Etc.

And, yet, no matter how little they actually know about anything, never mind about the most pressing issues of the day, they all have an "opinion" about everything. And many of them vote, based not on their knowledge but on their "opinions," however stupid or flat wrong. (As in the examples from Cato, above).

Hell, there are still countless numbers of willing idiots in this here free country who confuse Iraq with Iran and vice versa, never mind with Al Q and 9/11.

The entire history of Reagan's terrorist campaigns in Central America during the 80s (half a million dead or so) might as well never have happened, so far as the collective memory goes. There's exactly one attempt at a general history of the period available -- and that only about Nicaragua -- and that one's written by a neocon. But bring the subject up today and you might as well be talking about ancient Mesopotamia (get it, huh? get it?), for all most anyone will know about it.

And I'll repeat: the idea of democracy, from the beginning, has always, by all of its thinkers and doers, been predicated by the idea of an *educated citizenry* capable not only of historical and political understanding of the issues at hand, but also of making responsible decisions about them, not to mention understanding the consequences of their voting habits -- not only for themselves (who likes taxes? I mean, apart from Goodie, who gets paid with them) but for others, and in fact for the society as a whole.

No one in his or her right mind ever proposed the idea in the absence of an educated citizenry, and there is no other justification, in democratic philosophy's history, for mandatory schooling at public expense. The role of public education in a democratic society is to (help) produce an educated citizenry capable of acting and thinking like responsible citizens of a democratic republic. Most Americans today wouldn't be able to define the word republic and many couldn't spell it.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Goodspeak,

I don't think what Thomas wrote speaks only for people who vote Republican. I've been a registered Democrat since about 1984. My parents were registered Democrats. The city I grew up in was dominated by the Democratic Party. But until recently (like the last 5- 7 years) I've never thought about my political affiliation in as serious way. It was more like the Democrats is my team, like the Philadelphia Eagles are my team.

I think a lot of people think like that. They say they're a Democrat/Republican/liberal/conservative without really thinking what that means. Those are the teams they belong to.

I've had so many conversations with people here at work who can't understand why I'm not voting for Bush. I tell them it's not out of any particular "love" for Kerry. If they're patient I'll give them a virtual laundry list of reasons why I'm not voting for Bush, with examples, and they'll come back with something like, "Bush is a strong leader", or my favorite, "I can't stand Kerry's wife". Like Teresa's Yoko Ono and she going to break up the Cabinet.

But I've run across plenty of folks voting Democratic who do the same thing. Like they'll say the Republicans are too pro-business, but check out that last corporate tax bill. Looks like it had some nice bipartisan support.

The American people have got to get beyond this "team" mentality and really examine what their politicians are doing.

But then we get back to the jist of Thomas' article. The majority of Americans aren't going to do that.