Forbes has just published my op ed explaining how political ignorance and irrationality cut across both sides of the political spectrum:
A recent poll sponsored by the liberal Daily Kos Web site shows that many self-identified Republican voters hold irrational and extremist views–a finding that Kos founder Markos Moulitsos deems “startling.” Unfortunately, too many commentators mistakenly assume that such ideas are confined to one side of the political spectrum….
[O]ne can easily find parallel examples of dubious views among Democratic voters.
Moulitsos highlights the 36% of Republicans in the Kos poll who seem to endorse birtherism, and the 22% who say they aren’t sure. Yet a 2007 poll found that 35% of self-identified Democrats believe that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and 26% said they didn’t know if he did…..
Other examples of irrationality by Democratic voters are not hard to come by. According to a 2009 survey, some 32% of Democrats believe that Jews deserve at least a substantial amount of blame for the financial crisis (compared with 18% of Republicans). In November 2008 some 59% of Obama voters did not know that the Democrats then had control of Congress.
Voter ignorance and irrationality are general shortcomings of modern democracy. Most voters have incentives to be “rationally ignorant” about politics because of the extremely low chance that any one vote will be decisive in an election. For similar reasons, voters also have incentives to do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do have. Numerous studies show that they tend to discount information that goes against their preconceptions, while overvaluing anything that seems to confirm them.
The op ed is a revision of this Volokh Conspiracy post.
Randy says:
” Most voters have incentives to be “rationally ignorant” about politics because of the extremely low chance that any one vote will be decisive in an election. For similar reasons, voters also have incentives to do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do have.”
I have serious doubts about the veracity of these two statements. There are many, many reasons people are ignorant about politics, and I’ve heard many of them. Some are too busy making a living, some just have no interest. I think you are speculation-land and unless you have solid evidence to back it up, qualify the statement as Voters *may* have …..
Otherwise, you make many good points.
February 12, 2010, 10:29 pmIlya Somin says:
There are many, many reasons people are ignorant about politics, and I’ve heard many of them. Some are too busy making a living, some just have no interest. I think you are speculation-land and unless you have solid evidence to back it up, qualify the statement as Voters *may* have
These points are all compatible with rational ignorance interact with it. If individual votes were likely to be decisive, they would take more interest in politics, and also be more willing to spend more time acquiring political knowledge even at the expense of other priorities.
To put it a different way, the whole point of the theory rational ignorance is that it is rational for individual voters to put other concerns ahead of acquiring knowledge about politics and spend very little time and effort on the latter.
February 12, 2010, 10:40 pmPeter Gerdes says:
Just to nit pick a bit but the survey results aren’t nearly as scary as they initially appear.
For instance it’s not totally clear (at least from your post) in exactly what sense the democrats thought “Jews” deserved a substantial amount of blame for the financial crisis. One only needs to be a little racist to reason: well it was the fault of the brokers and traders and many of them are Jewish so yes, Jews do deserve a substantial part of the blame. So you don’t need to be all the way out in Jewish illuminati financial conspiracy land to answer yes.
As far as the Bush knew about 9/11 question again it seems (unless it was worded super carefully) that it may reflect less scary opinions than one might suppose. For instance some people might well think, “Well Bush knew that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US so sure he knew about the Al Qaeda attack before it happened.”
Finally the ‘birther’ question is the least disturbing of the whole lot. Sure, the people who think “Obama wasn’t born in the US and hence isn’t really the president,” are crazy nut jobs but how many of those respondents actually know that being born in the US has anything to do with being president. It doesn’t scare me the least if some people never bothered to look up where Obama was born so assume that he was born in the country his ancestors came from. Heck, it’s actually encouraging if voters don’t think birth country is a matter worth paying much attention to.
Sure these surveys are discouraging but there not apocalyptic. Especially when you figure that some percentage is answering out of frustration, amusement or inattention.
February 12, 2010, 10:41 pmCornellian says:
I remember a few years ago a poll that showed 1/3 of the people surveyed didn’t know who the Vice-President was, and this was when Cheney would have been about halfway through his second term.
Bainbridge noted a remarkable poll recently that indicated something like 20% of Republican voters had a favorable view of socialism. I suspect a large percentage of that 20% thought it had something to do with being socially outgoing.
I’ve learned to be skeptical about polling results. There’s a world of difference between a strongly held opinion and an off-the-cuff remark on an issue about which the person is rationally ignorant, even if the answer given in both cases is the same.
February 12, 2010, 10:42 pmLN says:
A majority of Americans believe they’re protected by a guardian angel.
It’s cute that there are people who will go through the effort of papering over the incoherencies in their preferred political philosophy. (Freedom good, democracy good, markets good, elected government bad — discuss.)
February 12, 2010, 11:00 pmbyomtov says:
Most voters have incentives to be “rationally ignorant” about politics because of the extremely low chance that any one vote will be decisive in an election.
I’m not sure you can ascribe the effect to the cause you cite.
This ought to be somewhat amenable to empirical research. If it’s true, then voter knowledge would increase as the scope of an election became smaller. That is, voters would be more knowledgeable about local issues and candidates, say, than national ones, because it is more likely that a single vote will be decisive in a local than a national election.
Does this hold?
February 12, 2010, 11:02 pmPeter Gerdes says:
Also your supposed solution to the problem is pretty uncompelling. As Tyler Cowen observes the solution that you (and Bryan Caplan to whom he was responding) suggest requires that somehow people are sufficiently knowledgeable/wise about politics to favor a small, limited government.
In fact I’d argue that thinking “There really should be a law about X” is paradigmatic of rationally ignorant/false beliefs. By voicing this sort of view one signals their solidarity with a particular moral viewpoint or class of people while rejecting or qualifying this kind of demand sends the mixed signal of unconcern or even agreement with the status quo. For instance if someone’s kid suffers brain damage because they ingested chemicals from their home chemistry set one appears sympathetic if you vaguely demand that a law be passed while if you respond with a monologue about limited government people get offended and even infer that you believe they deserve what they got.
We express and hold opinions about laws to perpetuate moral norms and attitudes and given our prohibition against vigilantism these attitudes will inevitably come in the form of “The government should stop/help/warn/encourage…”
—–
So long as voter’s national policy preferences make a big difference in who gains national political office the problem is unresolvable. Whatever solution you propose will eventually be reversed by the very same kind of rationally ignorant views whose influence you are trying to minimize. Even enshrining limitations into the constition isn’t enough as commerce clause jurisprudence makes clear.
I’d argue that the better solution is to return to the framer’s original intent: the people should only have indirect influence over who is elected to national or even state office. The the framers made the mistakes of giving the electors no independent role and allowing them to be selected too close to the time they choose the president. By mandating lower level office holders as the electors (heck start with city council work up through the county to the state) and staggering their elections (you can’t pick your city council member based on who they will vote for on the county board if that election isn’t for 3 years) one can prevent the system from collapsing. Requiring secret ballots at every level would further prevent machine politics and pre-promising certain votes.
February 12, 2010, 11:15 pmPeter Gerdes says:
Also your supposed solution to the problem is pretty uncompelling. As Tyler Cowen observes the solution that you (and Bryan Caplan to whom he was responding) suggest requires that somehow people are sufficiently knowledgeable/wise about politics to favor a small, limited government.
In fact I’d argue that thinking “There really should be a law about X” is paradigmatic of rationally ignorant/false beliefs. By voicing this sort of view one signals their solidarity with a particular moral viewpoint or class of people while rejecting or qualifying this kind of demand sends the mixed signal of unconcern or even agreement with the status quo. For instance if someone’s kid suffers brain damage because they ingested chemicals from their home chemistry set one appears sympathetic if you vaguely demand that a law be passed while if you respond with a monologue about limited government people get offended and even infer that you believe they deserve what they got.
We express and hold opinions about laws to perpetuate moral norms and attitudes and given our prohibition against vigilantism these attitudes will inevitably come in the form of “The government should stop/help/warn/encourage…”
—–
So long as voter’s national policy preferences make a big difference in who gains national political office the problem is unresolvable. Whatever solution you propose will eventually be reversed by the very same kind of rationally ignorant views whose influence you are trying to minimize. Even enshrining limitations into the constition isn’t enough as commerce clause jurisprudence makes clear.
I’d argue that the better solution is to return to the framer’s original intent: the people should only have indirect influence over who is elected to national or even state office. The the framers made the mistakes of giving the electors no independent role and allowing them to be selected too close to the time they choose the president. By mandating lower level office holders as the electors (heck start with city council work up through the county to the state) and staggering their elections (you can’t pick your city council member based on who they will vote for on the county board if that election isn’t for 3 years) one can prevent the system from collapsing. Requiring secret ballots at every level would further prevent machine politics and pre-promising certain votes.
February 12, 2010, 11:17 pmElliot says:
I’d agree people are ignorant about politics, but I’d have to see evidence that the reason is the low probability their vote will make a difference.
But, given that ignorance, there must be soemthing else motivating their voting choice. Otherwise we would see a fairly consistent distribution of votes over all candidates.
Thought experiment: Suppose the Dems get killed in the November elections, and let’s accept widespread political ignorance. What then would be influencing the ignorant voters in a non-random direction?
February 12, 2010, 11:48 pmGerbilsbite says:
I’m glad you brought this up, because I was thinking about that older post the other day while sitting at the House Administration Committee hearing on Citizens United. My question for you is this: don’t your same arguments in favor of political ignorance in civic life apply as well to political ignorance in corporate life? Is it not in the interest of an average shareholder in a large corporate entity (or union member) to generally assume without verifying that political contributions reflect the company’s best fiscal interest (or union’s larger policy goals) without regard to the non-relevant political views of managers (or of labor leaders if a union)? Or do you think the different relative power of a corporate treasury versus a single vote means that shareholders of politically active companies should become more readily informed about political expenditures (or regulate the maximum expenditures the corporation can make, or forbid the corporation from making such expenditures altogether)?
February 12, 2010, 11:58 pmIlya Somin says:
Also your supposed solution to the problem is pretty uncompelling. As Tyler Cowen observes the solution that you (and Bryan Caplan to whom he was responding) suggest requires that somehow people are sufficiently knowledgeable/wise about politics to favor a small, limited government.
I don’t think that achieving limited government will be easy. However, lots of surveys show that people are suspicious of government and many favor substantial reductions in its role. Moreover, such countries as New Zealand, Ireland, and Britain in the Thatcher years have managed to greatly reduce the role of government in their societies. So it’s not impossible.
February 13, 2010, 12:12 amIlya Somin says:
don’t your same arguments in favor of political ignorance in civic life apply as well to political ignorance in corporate life?
They do with respect to voting, but not with respect to buying and selling stock. The real constraint on management is not shareholder votes, but the power of exit by selling stock. Moreover, most corporations have substantial proportions of their stock owned by large shareholders whose votes do make a difference.
February 13, 2010, 12:14 amorca says:
I don’t think American voters are irrational, they just follow 2 simple rules that work very well:
February 13, 2010, 12:15 am1. Always re-elect your Congressional representatives (because seniority is the only thing that matters in Congress).
2. Alternate between Republican and Democratic Presidents (to avoid tyranny).
Ilya Somin says:
This ought to be somewhat amenable to empirical research. If it’s true, then voter knowledge would increase as the scope of an election became smaller. That is, voters would be more knowledgeable about local issues and candidates, say, than national ones, because it is more likely that a single vote will be decisive in a local than a national election.
It’s hard to tell whether this is true because the issues and candidates in local and national elections are not the same. Moreover, the chances of a vote being decisive are still extremely low even in state and local elections (except in very small towns).
The real support for rational ignorance is the fact that voter knowledge has remained stably low for decades despite increases in education and a vast increase in the availability of information due to modern technology (cable TV, internet, etc.).
February 13, 2010, 12:18 amIlya Somin says:
I don’t think American voters are irrational, they just follow 2 simple rules that work very well:
1. Always re-elect your Congressional representatives (because seniority is the only thing that matters in Congress).
2. Alternate between Republican and Democratic Presidents (to avoid tyranny).
Actually, rational voters would probably force Congress to abolish the seniority rules (since only a small fraction of all districts benefit from seniority, as opposed to being victims of it).
As for alternation, there have been many times when one party won 3-5 presidential elections in a row (1920-28, 1932-52, 1980-92, and so on), so there’s no evidence that the voters are trying to alternate (as opposed to simply vote out the incumbent party when things seem to be going badly).
February 13, 2010, 12:21 amorca says:
How exactly would they go about doing that?
IIRC, many of the Contract With America hucksters promised to leave office after a few years but stayed in office ‘cuz they had “important business to finish.”
February 13, 2010, 12:27 amIlya Somin says:
For instance it’s not totally clear (at least from your post) in exactly what sense the democrats thought “Jews” deserved a substantial amount of blame for the financial crisis. One only needs to be a little racist to reason: well it was the fault of the brokers and traders and many of them are Jewish so yes, Jews do deserve a substantial part of the blame. So you don’t need to be all the way out in Jewish illuminati financial conspiracy land to answer yes.
To say that “the Jews” deserve blame is to assign blame to the group as a whole, not merely some bankers. I agree you don’t have to be a stark raving anti-Semite to believe this. But it still indicates a disturbing level of prejudice and ignorance.
As far as the Bush knew about 9/11 question again it seems (unless it was worded super carefully) that it may reflect less scary opinions than one might suppose. For instance some people might well think, “Well Bush knew that Al Qaeda was going to attack the US so sure he knew about the Al Qaeda attack before it happened.”
The question was worded better than that. It referred specifically to the 9/11 attacks, not merely to a general knowledge about Al Qaeda wanting to attack the US (which no one could reasonably deny Bush knew).
Finally the ‘birther’ question is the least disturbing of the whole lot. Sure, the people who think “Obama wasn’t born in the US and hence isn’t really the president,” are crazy nut jobs but how many of those respondents actually know that being born in the US has anything to do with being president.
That in itself would be an indication of considerable ignorance. However, it seems unlikely that people would both pay close enough attention to know that Obama had a father who was born abroad, yet not pay enough attention to know that being born in the US is a qualification for being president.
Sure these surveys are discouraging but there not apocalyptic. Especially when you figure that some percentage is answering out of frustration, amusement or inattention.
I don’t think they are apocalyptic. At the same time, I don’t see why “frustration” or “amusement” would lead to wrong answers on surveys. In addition, some people will get correct answers just by guessing (a 1 in 2 or 1 in 3 chance of getting it right by random guessing on most of the items discussed in this post).
February 13, 2010, 12:27 amGordon Langston says:
National Irrational Exhuberance.
A cross we have to bear.
February 13, 2010, 12:34 amorca says:
The phrasing of that quest came from the “researchers” who asked it, not the survey respondents. Are you saying Neil Malhotra and Yotam Margalit displayed a “a disturbing level of prejudice and ignorance” in asking the question?
February 13, 2010, 12:49 amarch1 says:
Religion is unfortunately a major barrier to improvements in this regard. This is in part because the mode of belief necessary to sustain most religious tenets is faith (that is, the conviction that it is important and even virtuous to believe certain things independent of the evidence).
Recognizing this, many parents worldwide, and particularly in America, spend inordinate effort inculcating the faith meme into their children before their children are old enough to evaluate that concept on its dubious merits.
How many of these parents stop to think that once faith is taken on board, it can sustain pretty much any belief?
Technological advances are putting ever more destructive potential into the hands of small groups and individuals. It is hard to envision faith, freedom, and this increasing destructive potential all coexisting over the long term.
So, parents: How important to you is your particular arational belief system, as weighed against your (and alas my) childrens’, grandchildrens’, and great-grandchildrens’ future?
A hopeful scenario is that the need to choose wisely will become starkly clear in time. A less hopeful alternative is that it won’t – and that this helps to resolve the Fermi Paradox.
February 13, 2010, 12:55 amRicardo says:
The original study was much clearer on this. The researchers also tried an experiment where they divided a sample randomly into two groups: one group was given a short, neutral description of the Madoff scandal while the other was given the same description except the piece referred to Madoff as a “Jewish financier” or made reference to his participation in Jewish charities.
They then asked respondents whether they would favor tax cuts for business as a way out of the recession. They found the group that was randomly assigned to read about Madoff’s Jewish background were much more likely to reject tax cuts. Moreover, this effect was only present among non-Jews: among the Jewish respondents, reading about Madoff’s Jewish background made no difference.
I think this points to old-fashioned bigotry rather than “ignorance” although obviously both are closely related. People who think the financial crisis was caused by “the Jews” may tend to view different policies as appropriate when the ethnic characteristics of those at the center of the financial crisis is quite irrelevant.
February 13, 2010, 1:54 amorca says:
The percentage jumped a statistically insignificant 10% to 17%, a jump so small the “researchers” shrieked that this jump wasn’t just a coincidence…we think! These clowns would get laughed out of any real scientific field.
February 13, 2010, 2:04 amMy Forbes Op Ed on Political Ignorance | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more from the original source: My Forbes Op Ed on Political Ignorance [...]
February 13, 2010, 2:17 amThe string around your wrist says:
Only one vote, the tie-breaking vote, can be a decisive vote.
February 13, 2010, 2:32 amRicardo says:
Wrong, I’m afraid. The difference was 17% compared to 10% but the authors say in the article that it was “highly” statistically significant and my own calculations confirm it.
Their sample was 2,768 and they divided it into three groups: probably 923 in each. 10% of 923 is 92 while 17% is 157. If we use Fisher’s Exact Test (one of many ways to do test-of-proportions) on these numbers, we wind up with a two-tailed significance level of 0.00001.
I did this all in two minutes. So did I make a mistake somewhere or do you have some explicit support for your claim that the difference was statistically insignificant? Maybe they used a smaller sub-sample but the piece does not say. But since you seem convinced the difference was not statistically significant, I’m curious what calculation you used to arrive at that result.
February 13, 2010, 2:53 amorca says:
Ricardo,
First, if anyone asked me whether I blamed “the Jews” for something over the phone, I’d hang up assuming it was a crank call or the local KKK doing a push poll, and I assume most normal people would, too. I’d like to see how many people hung up on our researchers before they got their “random” sample of Americans.
Second, the variance between the number of people in each group of 931 who answered yes, 837, 772 and 800 is within the margin of error of the poll.
Third, supposedly, the only difference between these groups is whether they knew Bernie Madoff was Jewish or not based only on information the “researchers” supplied…yet we never hear what percentage knew that already. I’d assume many Americans already knew.
Shoddy crap like this may get you an A in a high school social science class but it really has no place in an adult discussion.
February 13, 2010, 3:48 amRicardo says:
No it is not. What formula are you using to calculate your margin of error? Not any formula I’ve ever seen. Either show your work or admit you were wrong.
As for the rest, since it is not an academic paper, they did not give summary stats for their overall sample or the different subgroups. You could do some research yourself to see whether you have a legitimate complaint with their methodology. But you are assuming what needs to be proven because you don’t like the results.
February 13, 2010, 4:56 amorca says:
Haha, you’ve got that right.
According to the “researchers,” only 10% of Americans opposed a tax break for big business back when all the tarp and bank bailout fiascos were unfolding.
If I had to guess, they managed to get that exactly backwards. Do you really believe only 10% of Americans opposed more tax breaks for big business last year?
Come to think of it, would knowing that Bernie Madoff, a small businessman, was Jewish somehow change your opinion on whether big American corporations deserved a tax break?
http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/best-estimates-guide-sample-size-and-margin-error
Nope, I think what we’re seeing here is the worst kind of phony science…a couple of guys who know what result they want and twist and turn their results to eek out something that maybe, if looked at in a certain light, kinda looks like it supports their own biases.
February 13, 2010, 5:14 amRicardo says:
Orca, there’s your problem. You are using a formula for sample mean standard deviation when you need to use a formula for testing means or proportions. You use the wrong formula so you are getting the wrong answer.
Try Fisher’s Exact Test or the Chi-Square test of independence.
February 13, 2010, 5:24 amButternut says:
So long as voter’s national policy preferences make a big difference in who gains national political office the problem is unresolvable. Whatever solution you propose will eventually be reversed by the very same kind of rationally ignorant views whose influence you are trying to minimize. Even enshrining limitations into the constition isn’t enough as commerce clause jurisprudence makes clear.
John Gerdes said:
“I’d argue that the better solution is to return to the framer’s original intent: the people should only have indirect influence over who is elected to national or even state office. The the framers made the mistakes of giving the electors no independent role and allowing them to be selected too close to the time they choose the president. By mandating lower level office holders as the electors (heck start with city council work up through the county to the state) and staggering their elections (you can’t pick your city council member based on who they will vote for on the county board if that election isn’t for 3 years) one can prevent the system from collapsing. Requiring secret ballots at every level would further prevent machine politics and pre-promising certain votes.”
BINGO
February 13, 2010, 6:29 amD says:
I disagree with the decisive vote theory. I come from a very small town (less than 1800 people). Local elections are usually decided by less than 50 votes. Up until last year, I was registered to vote there. Town residents are more knowledgeable about the candidates because we know them personally. However, it seems that ignorance of the issues is nearly as bad as you mention above.
I can think of 2 reasons for this:
1) It’s efficient. Not everyone has time to sort through every candidate’s positions on every topic. Instead, you pick someone who seems to have similar values and trust in his/her judgment.
2) Willful ignorance due to cynicism. I suffer from this sometimes. The voter thinks that “it doesn’t matter who I vote for because they are all corrupt. Everyone is out for themselves and nothing ever seems to change for my benefit.”
February 13, 2010, 6:54 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhConspirac: My Forbes Op Ed on Political Ignorance: Forbes has just published my op ed explaining how political ignorance and … http://bit.ly/aMzPA0...
February 13, 2010, 7:00 amDarwin says:
No one has mentioned the other side of this, those national or political facts knowledge of which is surprisingly high. Examples I can think of include (measuring knowledge back in time, shortly after the fact’s revelation):
That J. Edgar Hoover wore a dress at some private party or event. I’d estimate that 95% of the country seemed to know this.
Arcane facts about Hillary Clinton, such as that she threw a lamp at Bill, or that she traded commmodities. I remember listening to small-town radio while driving through the Midwest and being amazed at the call-in knowledge of her commodity trading.
Trying to think of something reasonably recent, I’d point to the extreme knowledge of and interest in Obama’s reaction to the confrontation between Professor Gates and the white Cambridge policeman. And, less politically, the universal and detailed knowledge of Tiger Woods’ fleeing from his wife and crashing his car after apparent argument over his affairs.
So perhaps the distinction lies in what is boring and unimportant compared to what is interesting and memorable. Who cares who the Vice President is and what difference does it make? While Professor Gates and the white policeman has racial aspects that everyone is fascinated with, a black professor at Harvard, a white policeman attempting to deal with him, President Obama losing some of his cool to weigh in.
February 13, 2010, 7:33 amSome kid says:
Suppose the kids at school are all leftists, and your teachers, the same, like all the comedians, and everyone on TV. So you’ve been brought up to think there’s only one path. If you’re not a leftist, you’re a racist, a reactionary, homophobe. But you’re not all those things. Or are you? Maybe you are?
Do you learn economics, and stick up for Israel? Your teachers think Israelis are implausibly cruel. Do you pretend to go along with conspiracy nuts, because they’re responsible for setting your grade?
The more information you have, the less happy you are. You set yourself apart from everyone else. You can remember, for example, the war in Kosovo. You even know what the Gulag was. You’re not ignorant enough to fit in anymore.
A vast increase in the availability of information, it seems to me, is a vast increase in not fitting in. Why become less ignorant? Why learn anything?
February 13, 2010, 7:40 amDarwin says:
I forgot the best example: George Bush Sr. not knowing what a supermarket scanner was and running around to get cans of food to have them scanned.
A extraordinarily high percentage of voters knew about this, and I feel it was this minor news item more than anything that caused the quite successful President Bush (1st Irag war, fall of the Soviet Union) to lose the election to Bill Clinton.
February 13, 2010, 7:51 amSome kid says:
But the voters were wrong about that supposed scanner “fact.” Andrew Rosenthal wrote the story without being there. But it’s The New York Times, so it’s what you expect. The voters are ignorant. The reporters make these things up.
February 13, 2010, 8:12 ammatt c says:
you keep mistaking ignorance for political decisions that are explained by emotional and mental preferences that cannot be surveyed.
this line of thinking is so tiring now…political ignorance, voters are dumb, i am an expert, blah
February 13, 2010, 8:43 amhilzoy fangirl says:
Did the question ask about “Jews” or “the Jews”? Because answering yes to the former would be significantly less troubling than the latter.
February 13, 2010, 8:56 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
I agree with D here. There’s a self-described left/liberal site I read, in which frustration is frequently expressed about Obama who is thought to have thrown away the opportunity he has had, with a Democratic house and senate, to do at least some of the things he said he would do. Once they get in there, they’re all the same. I remember the same complaint being made of GWB by various folks, “if I’d wanted a liberal I’d have voted for one.”
And people do put a lot of weight on character, as they should. Character isn’t everything but it’s a big piece of the pie.
February 13, 2010, 9:02 amPolitical Ignorance « Daniel Joseph Smith says:
[...] Political Ignorance By Daniel J. Smith http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/my-forbes-op-ed-on-political-ignorance/ [...]
February 13, 2010, 9:14 amHans Clapton says:
-you can’t, and you know you can’t, hold anything that comes out of that maniacal/sophomoric/violent website as “science”. There was nothing to write or opine about under the circumstances of the source. The origin negates it.
Simply because Moulitsos has been elevated to the position of Talking Head on toiletvision legitimizes nothing he or that crew of saber-toothed rats of his employs.
A “Kos” poll? LMAO.
February 13, 2010, 10:18 amA. Zarkov says:
It might be rational to be ignorant political details, but not basic history and civics. Take this on-line test. You should get 100% because virtually all the questions are extremely simple. But don’t assume you will necessarily do well because you went to college or even teach college. The average American got on about half right (49%), but college educators did little better scoring 55%. Moreover,
In other words, an American college education fails to impart a basic knowledge of history and civics. Don’t assume ivy league college students do any better. I have to ask: are we taxpayers getting our money’s worth out this this very expensive educational system we are forced to pay for? It seems to me that even a high school graduate should be able to at least pass this test. Yet every time we find out how little students learn, the response from the educational industry is “give us more money.” Let’s try giving them less.
We don’t have rational ignorance in America, just ignorance. This is what happens when “progressives” run the educational system.
February 13, 2010, 10:27 amA. Zarkov says:
False. Urban myth. Read the details of what actually happened here. This “Bush was amazed at scanner technology” has staying power even though it’s been corrected over and over.
February 13, 2010, 10:38 amA. Zarkov says:
We know people lack political knowledge. We know people lack a basic knowledge of history and civics? How about other subjects such as geography (generally not taught any more) or science? Read Why Geography Matters by Harm de Blij and you will see the astonishing level of ignorance about basic geography, and this includes the staffs of our presidents.
I would love to be able to give Sarah Palin the history and civics test. Perhaps then we would be free of this valley girl. Even better– Obama. While I’m not sure he would do well, I do think Bill Clinton would. He might be a liar, be he does bother to get informed.
February 13, 2010, 10:50 amShelbyC says:
The jews thing is kind of a BS question. It’s kinda like asking if you think blacks deserve a significant amount of blame for crime. It depends on how you interpret the question.
February 13, 2010, 11:07 amShelbyC says:
Folks become rationally knowelegable about these matters right before the exam, then they become rationally ignorant again on the way out. The whole rational ignorance thing is a no-brainer, I’m amazed Ilya catches as much flack as he does. And the flack comes from two directions, one saying it’s too obvious to be worth discusing, and the other saying it’s completely ridiculous. Bravo, Ilya.
February 13, 2010, 11:13 amG. May says:
You might be interested in this site as well. I found the results of some of the Ivy league schools rather appalling.
http://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/
February 13, 2010, 11:21 amMick says:
Amazingly hard to fathom that you cannot see the manipulation and propaganda that is going on with this “survey”. The objective is to equate “truthers” with “birthers”, and paint them both as crazies. It is hard to imagine that a specialist in Constitutional Law would not know that WHERE the son was born is only part of the Blood and Soil combination of Natural Born Citizen. The second essential part of the equation is whether the father and mother were Naturalized US Citizens at the time the son was born in America.
February 13, 2010, 11:24 amBeing a Yale JD grad, you may agree with the 2004 Yale nonsense paper about how the Natural Born Citizen requirement was “unfair”. The fact that an immigrant to this country can have a Natural Born child, eligible to be POTUS, born in the adoptive country, displays it’s fairness. It is a security requirement of 2 generations of citizenship.
Maybe you should reread The Venus (1814), where only 27 years after ratification, Vattel’s Natural Born Citizen definition is repeated verbatum. Or maybe Perkins v. Elg (1929) (31 years after the WKA), which describes 3 subsets of Citizenship and enforces the fact that only Natural Born Citizens are eligible for POTUS. In that case Miss Elg and Mr. Steinkauler are “Natural Born Citizens” (1) (eligible), born of “Naturalized Citizen” Parents (2)(ineligible) in America, and Mr. Bohn, born of Aliens in America is an “American Citizen” (3)(ineligible), further clarifying the holding of WKA, which was that the children born of Resident domiciled aliens were CITIZENS, not that everyone born in America is a Natural Born Citizen.
I don’t know your particular situation, but I do know that you were born in Russia, thus not a NBC, and if you have children, maybe they are not Natural Born (again, i am speculating) according to the correct Vattel definition. Maybe you think this is unfair, and that colors your perception. That is not an unusual reaction. If that is the case, maybe you also think it is unfair to 34 year olds. All 3 subsets have the same civil rights. The eligibility for POTUS is not a “right”. You are correct in your writings about the ignorance of the electorate, as that is what allowed Obama to be elected and to usurp the Presidency.
SenatorX says:
I don’t have the link handy but I saw a poll (last year I think) that showed how ignorant most elected officials are too. Might make for a good follow up subject.
February 13, 2010, 11:38 amA. Zarkov says:
The on-line test I linked to tests general knowledge a citizen should have as opposed to detailed course knowledge. I guess I don’t understand the concept of “rational ignorance.” I don’t expect citizens to understand Bell’s Theorem, but I do think they should know we have a bicameral federal legislature, and how we came to have it. They should understand the difference in voting for a representative and voting for a senator. Everyone should know that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. If all this ignorance is rational, then why should I have to pay for public schools? What’s in it for me?
February 13, 2010, 11:56 amRandy says:
Hans: ” “Kos” poll? LMAO.”
Well, at least his poll totals 100%, unlike those over at Fox News.
February 13, 2010, 11:59 ambyomtov says:
Ilya,
The equation of ignorance with a rational decision to be uninformed is not convincing to me.
Look at birthers as an example.
Birthers clearly pay attention to public matters, and consider it worth the effort to learn about political disputes. Clearly, any birther has heard the issue discussed, decided it was important, and come to a conclusion. That’s not someone who says, “I don’t care about Obama, or McCain or the eelction, I have other things to worry about.”
I think you are conflating two meanings of the word “ignorant,” – being wrong (misinformed) and being uninformed. There’s a tremendous amount of political discussion out there, as you point out. Some of it (most, actually) is wrong. But the fact that someone got bad information doesn’t mean they rationally ignored all that. More likely it means they picked out the pieces they were predisposed to believe anyway.
That explains why they often don’t explore the alleged facts too deeply. It might upset the entire system of belief. That’s rational ignorance, I guess, but from different motives.
February 13, 2010, 12:38 pmMick says:
I don’t think you have explored the facts at all. Or you would know that Obama is not an eligible Natural Born Citizen due to his father having never been a US citizen. I find the “constitutional lawyers” here amazingly inept at knowing the USC.
February 13, 2010, 1:04 pmElliot says:
Darwin makes a good point about various types of political knowledge. So, if we say people are politically ignorant, what is the standard for determining that? What does one have to know to be considered politically informed?
Is it possble pollsters and academics have a different idea of what is important than farmers, students, or retired linemen? Is it possible people are informed about what will most effect them and vote accordingly? Does everyone think like Thomas Franks?
February 13, 2010, 1:07 pmzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
The most commited Republicans are the most nuts?!?!? That would explain a lot…..
Cheers,
February 13, 2010, 1:14 pmzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
[from the Forbes article: Yet a 2007 poll found that 35% of self-identified Democrats believe that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and 26% said they didn’t know if he did.
Well, there was that PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.”…. Of course, Condi Rice couldn’t remember this … until it was pointed out to her. You might think that this honours student and allegedly highly gifted person might have a good memory, but it seems to have failed her there. Or you might think that she had a “guilty mind” and didn’t want to bring that up because she knew that it was damning that they were at the very least incompetent and didn’t do a damn thing about it. It is a legitimate question how much of the lassitude was due to incompetence and how much due to intentional neglect (and aversion to anything “Clinton” … a trait we seem to be seeing again in Republican aversion to anything “Obama”).
Cheers,
February 13, 2010, 1:21 pmzuch says:
Prof. Somin:
[from the Forbes article]: In November 2008 some 59% of Obama voters did not know that the Democrats then had control of Congress.
Did they?!?!? How would one know? ;-)
Cheers,
February 13, 2010, 1:23 pmG. May says:
It’s unfortunate that this blog is not immune to the ravings of partisan derangement, since it is otherwise a very interesting read.
February 13, 2010, 1:31 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Intentional neglect? Zuch, you are very close to saying that the Bush administration deliberately let 9/11 happen. I know you enjoy trolling and pulling people’s chains and all, but would you like to back away from that statement? Or do you have zero intention of being taken seriously?
February 13, 2010, 2:12 pmzuch says:
I’m quite close to saying that they let bin Laden do what he did. That doesn’t mean they had any idea that 9/11 would happen and go down the way it did.
But their studied neglect of bin Laden and the threat of terrorism is amply documented. Unfortunately, we can’t trust the principals at all (for reasons such as what I cited above), so getting into motives and thoughts is difficult.
The PNAC sentiment:
is ambiguous but interesting. RW authoritarians of various stripes over the years have used such “transformative” events to political ends. Whether I think the Dubya maladministration evil enough or capable enough to indulge in this is open.
There’s a certain insanity and dishonesty that sets in when the Republicans sniff advantage or power. ThinkProgress documents such almost every day. And here’s Glenn Greenwald on the execrable and opportunistic Mukasey. TDS and Stewart, of course, have done a good job of eviscerating a lot of RW nonsense … unfortunately those that should watch him won’t.
Cheers,
February 13, 2010, 2:23 pmG. May says:
Looks like the short answer is “yes”.
February 13, 2010, 2:35 pmanotheranon says:
orca – to provide some additional explanation of why your understanding of the margin of error is leading you astray, the “publicagenda” link you provided is describing the likelihood that the result of one of the subsamples accurately describes the population that the subsample is taken from. In other words, let’s say that there were 1000 people who were given the question where Madoff was described as Jewish, and 17% rejected tax cuts. The publicagenda link explains that based on this poll there is a 95% chance that the true percentage of people who would reject tax cuts under the same circumstances is between 14% and 20%. The publicagenda link doesn’t say anything about whether the difference between the two poll results is statistically significant.
February 13, 2010, 3:01 pmbyomtov says:
Mick,
Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. You obviously have not ignored the issue.
February 13, 2010, 3:05 pmNoesis Noeseos_ says:
From the article:
I agree about the size and scope of government; our “representatives” are suffering from the disease of elephantitis. I must demur, however, in comparing the government with civil society. The former is (when it is adequate to its concept) the realm of patriotism and objective law: sometimes we must submerge our personal preferences, go to war and risk our very lives to defend the homeland and its constitution. The latter is the individualistic, Adam-Smithian realm of voluntary exchange. In that realm fraud and the initiation of force are always wrong.
February 13, 2010, 3:08 pmRandy says:
byomotov: “The equation of ignorance with a rational decision to be uninformed is not convincing to me.”
That’s a very good. I’m still not convinced that people are ignorant because they have a good reason to be. If that were true, then how does the Prof. explain the fact that so many people are in fact very well informed? And what about the people, as you make note, who are very active, vote, follow the issues, but are radically misinformed?
In Washington, most everyone is well aware of politics and the issues, and think that’s for two reasons. One, is that this town attracts those types of people, and the other is that to cater to those types, we are inundated with information, and surrounding by those very types. In other words, we have a real culture of politics in Washington that simply doesn’t exist in other parts of the country. Are our voting patterns the same or different? That would color the Prof.’s arguments, I would think.
February 13, 2010, 3:29 pmArchangel says:
Overall public schools have done an atrocious job of teaching Civics, American History, Political/Economic Theory, and Geography because they have for the most part substituted “Social Studies” for all of the above, which focuses more on political correctness and race relations than anything else.
American adults suffer from political ignorance because our prosperity has bred complacency. We get 10 second sound bites from the TV news, and maybe catch a 10 minute segment on our preferred biased news source on the web, and assume we have enough information to argue about the topic.
I regularly ask my fellow Americans what “Banking Deregulation” means and answers are hysterical. Here we have something that is unfairly blamed for every issue with our banks (from the S&L Bailout to the recent Credit Crisis) and Americans still have not educated themselves…Yes, Congress deregulated the banks by a huge bi-partisan (Republican and Democrats) vote along the lines of 91 for and 6 against with 3 abstaining. Deregulation did not allow banks to invest in any wacky investments they wanted: 1) It turned over REGULATION of the banks to the Federal Reserve 2) It eliminated interest rate maximums 3) It allowed banks to be both investment banks and savings banks.
That’s just one example of how Americans throw terms around like “Free Trade”, “Sub-Prime Mortgage”, and “Health Care Reform” around without the slightest clue what they are talking about.
As for 9/11, it was an inside job! NEVER in history has a steel framed building collapsed from an airplane impact and the subsequent fire. NEVER! Then to have three (3) buildings collapse within a single day, one of which was never hit by an airplane (WTC 7) is just preposterous. Even the 9/11 commission (bunch of liars and shills) just shrugged their shoulders on WTC 7.
February 13, 2010, 4:05 pmMick says:
I have not ignored the issue nor have I ignored any facts that you may think are inconvenient to predipositions. The facts are the facts.
February 13, 2010, 4:11 pmHappily ignorant says:
If you don’t know how to drive, but you’re driving anyway, then there’s a clear cost to that. The downside is, you crash, you’re hurt. Whereas, with government, it doesn’t matter how much you inform yourself. You get hurt and bloodied whatever you do. You’re a passenger in the back and when you crash, that’s just life. So you might as well just sit back, look out at the view, enjoy the ride while it lasts, and remain happily ignorant about what’s going on.
February 13, 2010, 4:17 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
February 13, 2010, 4:26 pmShelbyC says:
Many folks are interested in politics, and stay informed because they enjoy staying informed. Similar to the reasons people are informed about, say, sports or french litterature.
February 13, 2010, 4:36 pmChrisTS says:
Zarkov:
That quiz was fun; thanks for the link.
I did get 2 wrong: one that asked about what governments would be most likely to do in a recession and one about what it would mean if taxes equalled government spending. I think there is always a problem with these kinds of quizzes (or, even the ones I create for students): that the questions can be read in more than one way. Also, those 2 questions were hardly of the pure civic knowledge sort – they were a bit more to the ‘views we like’ side. Still, the results they have collected are disheartening in the extreme.
And you are right, while many groups such as the AAC&U are pushing for learning goals that include basic civic knowledge, it is very hard to get this into a college/university general ed curriculum as a requirement. Why? Not because of ‘progressives,’ but because everyone wants their own favorite turf represented in the requirements at the same time that many [including students] want ‘non-prescriptive’ curricula.
Curriculum is a serious academic battleground, for many reasons. Colleges and universities have been minimizing general requirements for years – as requirements in major fields have been expanding. What gets kept and what gets cut among general requirements? Many of my science colleagues don’t see why their majors should have to take anything outside of the sciences. Many of my humanities colleagues think civic education should have been taken care of in high school. Colleagues in the arts decry lack of attention to creativity and interpretation.
Heck, nowadays, I am happy if they learn to write a coherent paragraph.
February 13, 2010, 4:37 pmShelbyC says:
I’m not sure if the “birther” situation can be described as ignorance. You, I, and birthers are equally ignorant about the birthplace of Obama. We just interpret the information we have differently.
February 13, 2010, 4:39 pmGrantl says:
Prof. Somin:
It’s pretty clear that the Democrats did not have control of Congress, since apparently control of Congress requires about 62 votes in the Senate.
February 13, 2010, 5:08 pmMick says:
and?
February 13, 2010, 5:13 pmA. Zarkov says:
Question 33 is a little tricky. You have to know that “debt” is not the same as “deficit.” The former is a stock (the total national debt) where the latter is a flow in the sense of dollars spent over dollars collected per year. When I took the test, I was not sure, but one answer was always true so I picked that one. On a few questions you need to game it a little to give them the answer they want. Nevertheless I think you will agree that the vast bulk of the questions are pretty easy, and no educated person should miss more than a few.
February 13, 2010, 6:26 pmA. Zarkov says:
Well clearly the high schools are failing at civics education. I guess the professors don’t care and see no need for remediation. But I think it should bother them that students graduate from their university with such deficiencies. How can they think they are turning out educated people? They seem to have a trade school attitude.
February 13, 2010, 6:38 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Mick, Nothing. I haven’t read the case yet; I remain rationally ignorant of its holding – just trying to do my part to help everybody get their information straight.
ShelbyC, I think that should read “You, me, and the birthers…”, but I agree with your point. I love polishing my grammar here. Just the other day, someone was being snarky about another using the word “Democrat” as a pejorative adjective, but I felt it wasn’t being used as an adjective at all in the sentence. Soon enough, another commenter explained that it was being used as an “attributive noun” – which I could sense, but never would have guessed the proper grammatical terminology.
…Ouch…
February 13, 2010, 6:50 pmbyomtov says:
I’m not sure if the “birther” situation can be described as ignorance. You, I, and birthers are equally ignorant about the birthplace of Obama. We just interpret the information we have differently.
Only in the sense that we weren’t physically present. I’d say there’s better evidence on Obama’s birthplace than on the vast bulk of political issues.
Anyway, the birther issue is not central to my point. What I’m trying to say is that if someone gives a seriously misinformed answer on a political question that does not necessarily mean they are rationally ignorant in Ilya’s sense. That is, it’s not that they are not interested in the question, it’s that they have it wrong.
If you don’t like birtherism consider creationism, which is sadly a political issue someplaces. I suspect many creationists are in fact very interested in the question, and that it matters greatly to them. They just have it wrong. So if we classify creationists as “ignorant,” we can’t say, as Ilya wants to, that they aren’t paying attention. They are, but to the wrong things.
February 13, 2010, 7:24 pmbyomtov says:
Mick,
I have not ignored the issue…
I agree. Please read my comment. I specifically said,
“You obviously have not ignored the issue.”
February 13, 2010, 7:26 pmzuch says:
And I suppose you folks think that “Now watch this drive” Dubya, “And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.” Condi Rice, and Mike Mukasey [just for starters] are “serious people”, eh?
Cheers,
February 13, 2010, 10:46 pmbadlaw says:
I have a feeling “birtherism” means different things to different people. I think there’s a small contingency of people who believe Obama is an illegitimate President because he was born out of the country (not to say he actually was, but that is their belief). I think there’s a bigger contingency (though still not a majority of the Right) who think Obama is legitimately President, but was not born in this country.
To be honest, I blame Obama for a lot of the birtherism nonsense. He could’ve nipped it in the bud two years ago by allowing reporters (with special invite to Fox News correspondents) to see his official birth certificate — feel, touch it, bite it — and bring a camera crew to show them verifying it. If the rumors persisted past that point, he could’ve just let the chips fall where they may. But he acted cagey with that rumor and did not handle it well, and instead he left his devoted followers do much of the fighting back (which is ironic given they wouldn’t have believed it enough to even consider the birthers had actual valid claims in the first place).
February 13, 2010, 11:43 pmorca says:
Why should Obama have tried to stifle a group of loonies who were reinforcing the idea that the Republican party is made up of lunatics and conspiracy theorists on a daily basis during a close campaign?
February 14, 2010, 3:51 amRicardo says:
Are we also all equally ignorant over whether the footage of the original moon landing was shot in a film studio or not? In some broad philosophical sense, there is a case for saying we are ignorant of everything except for our own existence. But to go from there to saying we can’t impose parameters on when doubt becomes unreasonable (as we do when we send somebody to get a lethal injection or serve a life sentence) is a bit much.
February 14, 2010, 4:59 amRicardo says:
We don’t need to speculate on this point. Some of the birther websites host claims that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth which has already been posted on the internet and examined by several different people is an “obvious” forgery. There is no reasoning with most of these people.
February 14, 2010, 5:03 amMick says:
Really? Like most of the apologists of dear leader, you obfuscate. Since when is the testimony of an unsworn website run by Obama’s former employer proof of anything? Regardless. He has admitted that at birth his citizenship was “governed” by Britain (because his father was Kenyan). As such he is not a Natuarl Born Citizen, even if born in the White House.
February 14, 2010, 5:16 amBy the way, whose hands are in those Factcheck photos with the COLB? Are they document experts?
Mick says:
Right, but then you imply that the conclusions I draw are preconceived. How can a man who’s citizenship at birth was “governed” by Britain be a Natural Born Citizen?
February 14, 2010, 5:22 amMick says:
Exactly, and why stifle a theory that obscures the real Constititutional question that is not conspiracy. How can a man who’s citizenship at birth was “governed” by Britain be a Natural Born Citizen?
February 14, 2010, 5:25 amMick says:
It’s not nonsense, his father was never a citizen, that is the real issue that is known and disqualifies him. He has not produced evidence of anything. A picture on an unsworn website is proof of nothing.
February 14, 2010, 5:29 amMick says:
I stand corrected, it was 1939, but it doesn’t change the facts of the case. That case upheld WKA (which was 41 years earlier), because it described 3 subsets of citizens. Natural Born Citizens, Citizens and Naturalized Citizens. Just like WKA was deemed Citizen, born of resident aliens, so was Mr. Bohn (in dicta), Why wouldn’t you read the case?
February 14, 2010, 5:44 amObama apologists like to say that only 2 types of citizens are described in the USC, but that is obviously false, there are 3; A2S1C4,5 Natural Born Citizens and 14th Amendment Born and Natuuralized citizens.
ShelbyC says:
I’m not sure I follow your point. I don’t think differences of opinion on where the moon landing was filmed are attributable to a different level of actual information about the event.
February 14, 2010, 11:37 amzuch says:
Why blame Obama? He’s done enough and more while under ridiculous demands. Acceding to such demands is simply bad precedent.
The fact remains that the entire blame for “birther” behaviour lies with the “birthers” themselves: They’re simply Cookoo As Cocoa Puffs!!!
And letting them be that has no significant political downside either, if you ask me. To be sure, producing more evidence and inviting in FauxSnooze and the like is not likely to cure the insanity … nor the hatred. And that’s the way it is….
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 11:52 amRandy says:
“Overall public schools have done an atrocious job of teaching Civics, American History, Political/Economic Theory, and Geography because they have for the most part substituted “Social Studies” for all of the above, which focuses more on political correctness and race relations than anything else. ”
Man, ain’t that the truth! I have stopped correcting people who think that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are actually NOT in the constitution. Too much work.
We learned about the constitution in 7th grade, far too early to remember anything. My Social Studies class in high school was a joke, and I just read the text anyway to get some basic information about the Civil War, and other important parts of the US.
But today, we have way too much entertainment. So easy to watch reality shows that teach us nothing except how to be a celebrity. Not that we should watch boring history lessons, but it would be nice to get good accurate analysis. PBS does a good job, what with McNeil Report, and NOVA, but the conservatives hate it for that reason.
February 14, 2010, 1:14 pmG. May says:
You folks? I didn’t know there were any of you “folks” here at VC. I’ve spent more time than I should have on other forums debunking all of the nonsense you’ve regurgitated here, that this is all glurge to me.
So let’s make a deal: I won’t take you seriously on anything you ever post again because you’re a troofer, and you don’t take me seriously because I’m one of whatever “folks” I am.
Deal?
February 14, 2010, 1:18 pmChrisTS says:
Zarkov:
Yes, I did think most of them were very easy. OF course, like Randy, I realize many folks think ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is a consitutional guarantee. :-{
I am not defending my colleagues who think basic civic education should have been addressed in high school and, thus, do not want it to be required at the college level. My point is that there is so much we would like to require and the constraints are so complicated that we end up requiring very little. This is a bad situation, but not an easy one to fix.
Along those lines, think of all the parents who do not think it is fair that little Johnny should be ‘forced’ to take math in college, or to struggle with fields he finds irrelevant to his ‘interests.’ Bah. Don’t get me started.
February 14, 2010, 2:13 pmzuch says:
Let’s make a deal: You don’t falsely accuse me of being a “troofer” when I’ve criticised on other fora the nutcases that say, contrary to all the physical evidence and common sense, that 9/11 was an inside job done by Dubya.
Keep in mind that malice is often indistinguishable from incompetence (and both from indifference), and we have good solid evidence that Dubya et al. were at best incompetent. And that’s what I was pointing out.
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 5:28 pmFury says:
May I recommend Greasemonkey? It allows you to selects users that will not have their comments displayed. Works great. I use it with Firefox. The previous version used to be a little nicer, as you could select users to ignore “on the fly”. In the new version (written to reflect the changes last year to VC), you just update a file to add the users to ignore.
More here:
http://www.greasespot.net/
Script to use here:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/35584
If you have any problems, let me know on a discussion thread and will do my best to help.
February 14, 2010, 6:30 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
And I suppose you folks think that “Now watch this drive” Dubya, “And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.” Condi Rice, and Mike Mukasey [just for starters] are “serious people”, eh?Cheers,
Zuch, I looked at your first link. It was an excessively nasty hit piece on Bush that had absolutely zero relevance to the matter at hand. I’m not looking at any more links that you have or will put up because I do not appreciate being tricked like that. If I want to look at ugly garbage I know where to find it. I don’t expect to be tricked into looking at it when I think I’m looking at information a serious person might want.
I will be looking at Greasemonkey.
February 14, 2010, 8:10 pmRicardo says:
You prove my point. The COLB was also examined by someone from hotair.com. But, you see, they are obviously in on the con. Even if we had five different experts who have spent thirty years each on examining documents for authenticity and know all about what inks and typesetting methods were available in years past, you would find some excuse to accuse them of being unreliable partisan hacks.
And once again, you are mischaracterizing Perkins v. Elg. The decision does not lay out three categories of citizenship nor does it address the question of whether a natural born citizen and a citizen at birth are the same thing. The only time the decision even uses the phrase “natural born citizen” is in quoting the lower court decision. Nowhere does the court take upon itself to define what natural born citizen is or even mention the phrase aside from this off-hand quotation.
February 14, 2010, 8:57 pmG. May says:
Having argued against “you folks” more times than I ever should have, Troofers are easy to spot. You’re more of the PR Troofer, the one who gives cover to the crazies. When called on it, you display the deer-in-the-headlights act, crying foul. I’m almost sure the equivalent, if not verbatim, of “Hey, I’m just asking questions.” has escaped your keyboard more than once…most likely early in your development.
Your partisan drivel is painful enough to sift through during your regularly scheduled thread hijack attempts, but trooferism (no matter how well-disguised) is a bit too much to tolerate on an otherwise extremely intelligent and useful blog.
Looks like greasemonkey will be getting another hit. Thanks Fury, and I’ll take you up on your offer.
February 14, 2010, 9:24 pmzuch says:
I thank you for telling me what I think (as opposed to what I say). Now I thank you for SingTFU about things you have no standing to discuss. I am quite capable of explaining my thoughts and opinions, and do not need your incompetent assistance.
Speaking of “thought processes”, how does tearing a new orifice in some eedjit “truther” who had not the slightest acquaintance with the laws of physics constitute “giv[ng them] cover”?
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 10:36 pmzuch says:
Wow. Tricked into reading a Washington Post article. I’m so sorry I deceived you, Laura. I’ll try to restrict my subsequent links to WhirledNutzDaily, m’kay?
Cheers,
February 14, 2010, 10:50 pmLaura(southernxyl) says:
Link to whatever you want. I’m done with you.
February 14, 2010, 10:52 pmzuch says:
Fine by me. You aren’t interested in actual discussion, so I doubt we’ll miss much. And, “Greasemonkey” or not, I will continue to address your comments.
Cheers,
February 15, 2010, 12:08 amnone says:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/14/truther-denial/
At the time, the poll did not offer a partisan breakout. So I got in touch with Guido Stempel, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center, and asked for the cross-tab by party. Here it is:
Very likely:
* Dem 22.6%
* GOP 4.9%
* Inde 16.7
Somewhat likely:
* Dem 28.2%
* GOP 12.6%
* Inde 15.2%
This means that, according to the Scripps poll, about half of Democrats, about a third of Independents and nearly a fifth of Republicans said it was “likely” that “federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them” in order to go to war.
February 17, 2010, 4:16 am