Co-conspirator Ken Anderson draws my attention to Alan Wolfe’s statement that “Americans are most certainly misinformed. Dumb they are not.” This of course is exactly what I have been saying for years: political ignorance is widespread, but isn’t necessarily a sign of stupidity. To the contrary, being ignorant about politics is, for most voters, actually rational behavior, as is doing a poor job of evaluating the political information they do possess. I also find myself in agreement with Alan Wolfe in his skepticism about Derek Bok’s paternalistic policy proposals (though for different reasons). If voters tend to be ignorant and often illogical in their evaluation of the information they know, transferring more power to government in order to adopt paternalistic policies will only increase the impact of the types of cognitive errors paternalists seek to correct.
Elliot says:
Whenever I read about the individual ignorance of members of a group, I am amazed at the success of the group. We can observe the individual ignorance, but can we account for the collective success?
Speculation: As a nation, would we be more or less successful with less political ignrance.
February 21, 2010, 9:11 pmIlya Somin says:
We can observe the individual ignorance, but can we account for the collective success?
It depends on what one means by success. The US is successful by comparison with most other nations. However, those other countries are either themselves democracies (thereby also suffering from voter ignorance) or dictatorships, which have serious incentive problems of their own. Relative to most other nations, the US has a smaller government, and therefore leaves fewer decisions up to a political process where voter ignorance plays a big role. I think that is an important cause of our relative success.
February 21, 2010, 9:15 pmeyesay says:
Smaller government is sometimes a good idea. We should never have invaded Iraq.
Bigger government is sometimes a good idea. If we had single-payer health care, we could have health care for all for less than we’re paying now for health care for some. Our economy would grow as more people, not fearing loss of health coverage, would be willing to leave their employment and strike out on their own. Our lack of national health care is failure, not success.
February 21, 2010, 9:37 pmAllan Walstad says:
The neocons have their fairy tales about how military interventionism is such a great thing, while the left-liberals have their fairy tales about how economic interventionism is such a great thing. All fairy tales, unfortunately.
Anyhow, rational political ignorance is old hat, and folks either comprehend the point by now or don’t (or don’t want to). What’s much more significant about Bok’s book and Wolfe’s review has to do with this so-called “happiness” research as a new collectivist wedge. I commented on it on the earlier thread, which was sparsely populated, so forgive me for pasting it in here in case someone is more knowledgeable.
Re-post:
I haven’t read Bok’s book, but I’ve had a look at some of this “happiness” literature and Wolfe’s skepticism is more than warranted. Psychologically, of course, people habituate to whatever condition they are in, particularly if they are not continually and personally confronted with a basis for comparison, which tends to equalize “happiness” levels for folks living in different conditions and at different times. So you can do studies showing that people in wealthier countries (or wealthier states within the US) are not much happier than those in the less-wealthy.
February 21, 2010, 9:59 pmOne problem with just looking at income and wealth levels is the flip side of habituation, namely, that people respond more to how things are changing than to the sustained absolute level. What happens if policies are implemented based on the idea that wealth isn’t so important, and the result is to stunt the overall growth rate?
A related problem is that happiness (or “life satisfaction, a parameter I’ve seen used) is not all that far from “complacency,” while ambitious people (until their ambitions are all fulfilled) are surely not complacent and not so likely to rate themselves happy or satisfied. But ambitious people in a market economy are the prime drivers of economic change. So again, I’d be extremely cautious about policies, based on “happiness” studies, that might blunt their incentives.
Finally, certain significant things cost more in wealthier countries and states: particularly land and homes. Thus, in important (though perhaps not all) ways, the same income doesn’t go as far toward acquiring desirable living conditions, and I’m not sure that sufficient allowance has been made for this. (Perhaps other commenters here are better acquainted with the literature.) If you don’t compare apples with apples, you can get spurious results.
David McCourt says:
If the public at large is so ignorant, who do they grasp the simple truths — AGW is this year’s hysterical tripe, Obamacare will cost, not save, money, the “stimulus” stimulates little but the growth of debt, etc., etc. — when our educated politcal class seems so inclined to believe complicated fairy tales.
February 22, 2010, 12:23 amIgnorance is Not Stupidity, Redux | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] more here: Ignorance is Not Stupidity, Redux [...]
February 22, 2010, 12:52 amorca says:
Has Obama done what the people who voted for him expected him to do?
Did Bush?
February 22, 2010, 1:55 amStephen Lathrop says:
Education helps. A free press helps. The problem with these seems to be getting the scale right, and finding the means.
People in general are intelligent enough for their ordinary needs—upon which they also tend to be well informed and highly alert. However, in large parts of the world (including in much of the U.S.) information can be hard to come by, except on subjects relating to prejudices, partialities, cupidities, and excitements. William James commented on that.
Also, most people are neither ethicists nor natural philosophers. The tend to rely on families and peer groups as suppliers for both facts and moral opinions. That has its problems.
Normal distributions being what they are, genuinely stupid people are not too common. But that doesn’t rule out a large population of artificial idiots.
In high school my son’s friend had a t-shirt:
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”
February 22, 2010, 2:11 amNick says:
Education, it turns out, does not help. And a free press helps to the extent free markets help. Which is to say, you can read a certain newspaper cover to cover every day, commit every word to memory, and be less informed than if you read an honest blogger instead. I’m exaggerating, but not by much.
Newspapers apparently lack the incentives a halfway honest blogger has. A blogger has a reputation to build. Reporters, on the other hand, trade on an assumption of authority they seem never cease to demonstrate they do not deserve.
Either way, their readers aren’t interested in informing themselves. They want confirmation instead, and to conform to their set. They need to believe what their friends believe. At least, when the topic’s politics, they do. Where the cost of being right exceeds, perhaps uniquely, the cost of being wildly wrong.
February 22, 2010, 4:32 amMick says:
Success by Comparison? We are a Democratic Republic by the way, not a Democracy. I find the supposed educated elites every bit as ignorant, so your blather about an uneducated politic is merely high minded conceit. You fail to know that this POTUS is not an eligigible Natural Born Citizen (father was never a US Citizen). Is it because you aren’t either? Or maybe your children are not (just asking)? Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 US Citizen parents (see the Venus 1814, Minor v. Happersett (1873), Perkins v. Elg (1939)). I mean, as a supposed Constitutional scholar you should know that, right? But I guess we know what we want to know.
February 22, 2010, 5:01 amChrisHo says:
Too many people hear a message that is not there. So I doubt many Bush supporters were truly happy and many Obama supporters will just as disappointed.
February 22, 2010, 6:39 amPersonFromPorlock says:
The whole point of a representative democracy is that the citizens don’t have to spend a lot of time on the details of government. All they have to do is decide whether their representatives are producing government that’s good enough for them to be re-elected.
February 22, 2010, 8:07 amHans Clapton says:
Speculation: As a nation, would we be more or less successful with less politics to ignore.
February 22, 2010, 8:11 amMick says:
Why should anyone trap themselves in the “Party” politics game. George Washington warned against the mechanisms of political parties in the way they can divide the electorate against themselves. Both parties are anathema to the Republic.
February 22, 2010, 8:34 am_Jon says:
One of the teachings of my father:
“It is ok to be ignorant, it is bad to be stupid.
Being ignorant means you don’t know better.
Being stupid means you know better and make the wrong choice anyway.
Don’t be stupid.”
– I heard that enough times to commit it to memory.
February 22, 2010, 8:43 amG. May says:
I wonder how much intuition factors into this equation. What a voter may not be able to rationally quantify, qualify, or articulate, they are able to arrive at a relatively reasonable conclusion through their intuitive processes.
Also, how much is communication a factor? I’ve found that when people not be able to articulate how they arrived at a conclusion, it doesn’t necessarily mean their reasoning is poor, just that their ability to communicate their thoughts is limited.
February 22, 2010, 8:49 amAllan Walstad says:
Unfortunately, they don’t have the information they need without knowing the details. For example, people tend to think their congressman is doing a great job because of all the federal spending they get for their district; what they don’t see–unless they look and think–is the whole unproductive political game of musical dollars that makes us all worse off. Your incorrect claim about politics would, however, apply fairly well to markets. There, you don’t have to vote for the full package; you just select and pay for the things you want.
February 22, 2010, 8:55 ammikeyes says:
I don’t want to judge the veracity of the above statement, but where is the wisdom in having informed opinions? They still don’t account for very complex systematic changes that seem to occur no matter what we do in American society. It appears that as long as the economy is not at one end of the bell shaped curve, a buffering effect exists that takes the edge off of almost any economic decision and that most decisions don’t have a significant long term effect until we have no choices left.
Americans have a tendency to vote for the opposition when one philosophy becomes predominant and love coalition governments. This occurs mostly in the context of “throw the bums out” rather than a thoughtful process of weighing the pros and cons of the present government. This doesn’t take a whole lot of thought.
So is being “informed” all that useful? I suspect that most conspirators are very well informed but we still come to opposing opinions on how the world should be run. In the end it seems that we are more faith based than reason based :grin:
Also, let’s face it, our leaders routinely lie to us in order to simplify the perception of what they do and to get re-elected. Our information has a huge noise to signal ratio and it is often hard to understand what those who are elected are going to do and why. Cases in point: Earl Warren and George Wallace who ended up acting differently than advertised when they had the opportunity to follow their own philosophies.
February 22, 2010, 10:07 amsmrstrauss says:
Re: “You fail to know that this POTUS is not an eligigible Natural Born Citizen (father was never a US Citizen).”
All US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
February 22, 2010, 1:09 pmfwb says:
The current generation (Y) is a step above the last generation (X) in their ignorance. Gen Y is more ignorant that even I thought possible.
Public education is the primary source of faulty information and valueless “training”.
As a hard science prof for nearly 30 years, I see nothing stopping the downward spiral, a spiral increasing in speed and intensity. A lack of general knowledge and an absolute dearth of any specific knowledge is the core problem. Our education system has failed because our education system has been working on societal reformation rather than education.
February 22, 2010, 1:31 pmMick says:
Ah Strauss, spreading your paid for disinformation again i see. Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham are not authorities, nor are even D students of the USC so your blather means nothing but a feeble attempt at propaganda.
February 22, 2010, 1:38 pmVlad Konings says:
Fact not in evidence. Who says the paternalists are seeking to correct cognitive errors?
You want to reduce cognitive errors? Divide the entire country up into districts of, oh, 5000 people or so. They get to vote for an elector, and that’s the extent of their democratic participation in government. Oh, and they have to actually show up at the town hall meeting where the candidates make their pitch and the vote is taken.
These 60,000 electors then choose the actual Congress. They also have some local legislative power, enough that it is rational for their constituents to pay attention to their positions and qualifications before voting for them.
Oh, wait, that sounds a lot like the U.S. in 1789. Not identical, but eerily similar. I guess I’m some kind of hopeless reactionary.
February 22, 2010, 1:40 pmsmrstrauss says:
Re: “Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham are not authorities…”
But the Chief Justice of the United States (Roberts) IS an authority, and Roberts swore in Obama.
In addition, Obama received all 375 Electoral Votes that he won in the general election despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to have some of the electors change their votes. Not one of the 375 that Obama won thought that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. In addition, Obama was confirmed unanimously by the US Congress, despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers that tried to convince some members of Congress that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. UNANIMOUSLY.
February 22, 2010, 2:29 pmGramarye says:
I have to admit my discomfiture with the whole “rationally ignorant” meme is that it seems to lead naturally towards a proposals for large-scale revocation of the franchise. I’m sure that those already viewing the world through libertarian lenses want to believe that it leads only to arguments for more circumscribed government, but I’m not sure I see that. Most institutions under excessive influence of ignorant people don’t try to shrink themselves in order to reduce the fallout that being overly influenced by ignorant people might cause; they try to reduce the influence ignorant people have over the institution.
February 22, 2010, 2:33 pmStephen Lathrop says:
Vlad Konings proposal sounds like a good one to me, at least at first glance. Seems to invoke the strengths of the republican form of government. Wish there was some way to give it a try for about 10 years and see what happened.
Any thoughts on how doing it Vlad’s way would help flush out the corruption in Congress?
February 22, 2010, 2:39 pmMick says:
As you well know, neither one of those arguments means anything. Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 citizen parents.
February 22, 2010, 3:24 pmsmrstrauss says:
Re: “Natural Born Citizens are born in the US of 2 citizen parents.”
NOPE. All citizens born in the United States are Natural Born Citizens.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
February 22, 2010, 3:58 pmrj says:
Ilya,
Let’s get this straight once again. Just because someone disagrees with your premise (on unintended consequences, federalism or anything else) doesn’t mean they are ignorant. It might mean that you are a little blinkered in your thinking, but it does not mean they are ignorant.
February 22, 2010, 4:10 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Well, if we’re going to get on the qualifications for president kick again, let me just note that the last president who was qualified under the actual wording of the Constitution was Martin van Buren.
Yep, the actual wording precludes anyone who wasn’t alive when the Constitution was adopted. And while some might say it’s just a matter of the Founders using commas differently than we do, it can also reasonably be suggested that they were uncertain of the wisdom of the rule and set it up to expire at some time in the future when more experience with the presidency was available. And, of, course, given the deference with which the Court treats any rationalisation which might have crossed the legislative mind….
February 22, 2010, 4:19 pmTed says:
What authority supports your view? smrstrauss has offered at least four. If you don’t make your case here, no one listens. Or, more likely, they think you’re full of it. (And we all know what “it” is.)
Does not help what? It certainly helps something. According to the linked source, it does not help increase “civic knowledge,” but it does influence decisions regarding social issues. Maybe “civic knowledge” isn’t all that important to deciding social issues correctly, maybe it is. But neither you, nor the cited source, make a case that “civic knowledge” results in a more just, correct, or better society/government/country. For my two cents, I think higher education focuses a student’s critical thinking skills, and familiarizes them with certain decision-making tools, such as the scientific method, logical reasoning, and mathematics. I’m not surprised the more-educated folks tend not to believe the Bible is the word of god or disfavor abortion regulation. Those appear to be appropriate results when using the pragmatic tools provided by the educational system. I expect the opposite would be true of people run through the religious “education” system, because the decision making tools exemplified in that institution are traditional and socio-centric. This still does not answer which set of tools is best applied to determine political issues; I personally think the former returns better results than the latter.
Um, if they can’t articulate how they arrived a conclusion, on what basis do you judge their reasoning? If you ask me if A is guilty of murder because he killed B with an unjustified and premeditated intent to kill B, and I say, “Yes,” how do you know that I just don’t like the way A looks? Or I think that the fact B died is the sole criteria for a murder charge, irrespective of A’s intent? Or that I have no reason at all, and I’m just guessing. That is, do you not recognize a problem when someone gets the “right” answer for the wrong reasons, or with no reason at all?
I would say that when people arrive a conclusion without an ability to articulate why, its best not to speculate about their reasons at all, right or wrong.
February 22, 2010, 4:48 pmPaddy says:
Ignorance is not stupidity unless it is culpable ignorance.
February 22, 2010, 5:30 pmMick says:
Ted said,
“What authority supports your view? smrstrauss has offered at least four. If you don’t make your case here, no one listens. Or, more likely, they think you’re full of it. (And we all know what “it” is.)”
I’ve cited The Venus (1814) (only 27 years after ratification of the USC where Justice Marshall directly quotes Vattel’s Law of Nations definition of Natural born citizen). Minor v. Happersett (1873) again directly quoting Vattel. Perkins v. Elg (1939) which affirmed 3 different subsets of citizens, American Native-born citizens, Naturalized citizens, and Natural Born citizens in dicta, where only the Natural Born citizens are eligible for POTUS. It seems Strauss and Mr. Somin don’t know those cases, but I believe Mr. Somin’s beliefs are in self interest.
February 22, 2010, 5:56 pmCJColucci says:
To re-raise a point I raised on the earlier post, isn’t there a difference between being “misinformed,” as Wolfe describes Americans, and “uninformed”? One can rationally accept being uninformed on a great many things. But is it rational to accept being misinformed? Like all of us, I am uninformed about a great many things, such as ice dancing, how currency traders operate, and ERISA, but I know that I do not know about them and have rationally (I think) decided not to make the effort to learn. But I know that I do not know, and as a result, I do not hold any incorrect beliefs about those topics. When, if at all, is it rational to accept being wrong, as opposed to merely being ignorant?
February 22, 2010, 6:29 pmAllan Walstad says:
The franchise for what? If you build a house, do the rest of us vote on who gets to move in? Libertarians believe people have a basic right to pursue their goals and purposes in non-coercive interaction. The proper role of government, if any, is limited.
Huh?
February 22, 2010, 7:20 pmAllan Walstad says:
I’d say the two can be distinct, or they can be part and parcel of the same thing. It depends on what you’re talking about. If somebody thinks his congressman is great because of all the federal spending he brings to the district, but is uninformed about the huge zero-sum game of musical dollars by which pols deliver highly visible benefits via diffuse costs, then being uninformed is also to be misinformed, because the lack of knowledge is leading to bad decisions (unless you think “I’ll scratch your back with my voters’ taxes if you scratch my back with yours” is a good thing.
February 22, 2010, 7:28 pmElliot says:
I suppose we can compare the US current state to its state 200 years ago. I’d say it has made great strides in that time. Were people politically ignorant over those 200 years? I wouldn’t dispute that. But, we still don’t know how collectives manage to make those strides.
Perhaps we are discounting intuition? Maybe we discount the aggregate decisions of many individuals, each operating on specific knowledge important to them?
I don’t have the answers, but I don’t think we can be sure the collective would operate any better with individuals having more political knowledge. To say that with any confdence, we would have to understand the group dynamics of a 300 million collective.
I’d also note the conditions that make political ignorance a rational choice would also make it a rational choice to avoid voting. But we see politically ignorant people do vote. Perhaps they know at some level that it does work, even if we and they don’t understand how. If so, they are making a rational choice.
Whare’s Harry Seldon when you need him?
February 22, 2010, 8:03 pmTed says:
“Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The Venus, 12 US 253, 289 (1814).
Justice Marshall quotes Vattel in the context of who is a citizen, not a “natural-born” citizen. And Vattel’s definition, cited above, suggests that only a single parent need be a citizen, not both. Unless you really intend to argue that natural citizenship is a right only passed through the father, and not a mother.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167–68 (1874) (emphasis added).
It seems to me the Court simply said that one is for sure a natural-born citizen if both one’s parents are citizens. It explicitly refused to decide whether a person born in the US without reference to the citizenship of the parents may be considered a natural born citizen. This does not support, one way or another, the claim that one citizen-parent may not pass citizenship to her offspring.
Finally, in Perkins v. Elg, the Court cited an Attorney General’s opinion with approval that determined a natural-born boy, whose father was a naturalized citizen, but later denounced his citizenship, was indeed a “natural-born” citizen allowed to someday be President. Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 330 (1939). This appears to undermine your position that both parents need to be citizens, as the citizenship of the boy’s mother was not mentioned.
Maybe I am misreading the opinions, I only scanned them quickly. But these cases appear to undermine your position or provide no support one way or another. What am I missing?
February 22, 2010, 8:14 pmsmrstrauss says:
I have just read through Perkins V. Elg. It is not a Natural Born Citizen case. However, most likely Elg would have been a Natural Born Citizen according to your “two parents plus born in the USA” doctrine because not only was she born in the USA but her father became a Naturalized citizen before her birth.
There is no mention of her mother being naturalized, but the issue does not revolve around whether Elg was Natural Born in any case. In the Wong Kim Ark decision, it revolves completely around the meaning of Natural Born, and the majority of justices (six to two) held that the meaning stems from the common law and means “born in the country (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats)”.
This meaning of Natural Born Citizen has been followed in dozens of federal court cases since then. For example:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
The parents are both Romanian, the children are Natural Born Citizens.” What makes them Natural Born Citizens? Their birth in the USA.
And:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Even the US-born children of illegal immigrants are considered Natural Born Citizens.
And:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
Two children are not citizens at all. One is a natural-born citizen. Why? Because she was born in the USA.
And:
State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):
“According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.”
In this case, the words natural-born citizen is used as a synonym for native-born.
This should not be surprising. The common way of using the phrase Natural Born Citizen for years was as a synonym to native-born citizen. For example, in registering for the draft during World War I, men were asked whether they were citizens or not, and then, if they were citizens, whether they were naturalized or Natural Born Citizens. (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E7D8123AE433A25750C2A9639C946696D6CF)
February 22, 2010, 8:19 pmAllan Walstad says:
To what extent were the great strides made by collectives, Elliot, and to what extent were they made by people interacting (relatively) non-coercively in markets? To what extent were the successes due to coercive collectivism and to what extent were they the result of non-coercive collective endeavors? I suggest that the US made great strides because the limited federal government established by the founders offered relatively ample scope for enterprise and philanthropy.
Not necessarily. Rational ignorance does not necessarily imply apathy. Where the scope of government action is far too vast for individuals to become fully informed, they still have an incentive to become informed about those specific, visible things that directly impact them, and to vote on that basis. That’s why incumbent pols can make themselves virtually invincible by providing highly visible, concentrated benefits for which the costs are diffuse and less obvious in each case.
February 22, 2010, 8:27 pmElliot says:
I would include all those options under the actions of the collective. However it’s done, it represents the progress and success of the collective, nation, group, polity, etc.
I agree RI does not imply apathy. My point is that if political ignorance is rational because one person’s actions can have such miniscule effect, then that same logic would consider voting as one of those actions.
I completely agree that people may inform themselves of things that directly impact them, yet be ignorant of other things. We then come to the point where we have to ask those observing political ignorance exactly what standard implies being politically well informed.
A Kansas farmer may be much better informed about proposed changes in the CRP program than a Washington lawyer. And the lawyer may be much better informed about decisions of appelate court nominees. So, does anyone know what it means to be politically well informed? Would such information include proposed changes in the CRP program? Judicial philosophy of nominees?
February 22, 2010, 9:38 pmAllan Walstad says:
Right. But what I’m suggesting to you is that there is another reason for rational political ignorance, a very important one, and one which does not necessarily lead to apathy: it’s not that one person’s actions can have only a miniscule effect, but rather that most people cannot reasonably devote the time it would take to become and remain fully informed about government action. A person can, however, become informed about pols’ positions and votes on a few specific issues that affect him or her visibly and directly. And vote on that basis. Furthermore, the existence of massive government spending and regulating is a function of (at the federal level) 535 people in Congress and a president. You only get to vote for 4 of those people. Even if everyone in your district or your state voted for smaller government, you wouldn’t likely get it. In that sense, you’re pretty powerless, it seems. But not without an incentive to vote–vote for the pols who will fight the hardest to bring home a maximum share of the loot that’s being doled out anyway.
I wouldn’t go remotely that far. Thomas Edison’s inventions were not the achievements of a collective. A collective did not invent the personal computer or mass production of automobiles. People have to be able to work together, yes, and it certainly helps to have cultural attitudes and economic and political institutions conducive to productivity. But the main ingredient there is respect for and defense of individual liberty, because ultimately it is the insights and entrepreneurship of individuals that lead the way.
February 22, 2010, 11:11 pmNick says:
Education does not make us thoughtful, rational, consistent, informed. We adopt the attitudes other students adopt. But that’s not the same as thinking things through. Swapping this Bible with that, this religion with that, is all some students do. Even a tradition you choose to adopt, is a tradition, is still what it is. A prejudice, a superstition, the beliefs of our tribe. No foundations to ground it or a structure above. We stop short, and smugly say that some things are wrong, but if we’re consistent, we wouldn’t stop there. Instead of a random grab-bag of what we call human rights, we’d buy the whole set, even those rights college students do not like. Or vice versa, for those people we contrast ourselves with. They ought to ban everything the Bible’s against. But if they did that, they’d be fanatics, too extreme for their friends. So they have their blind spots, no less than we do. We have attitudes, but we’re no more informed. We take positions about things that don’t force us to work. Things that don’t require homework. They’re not empirical questions of how government works. They’re questions about how we imagine ourselves, who we see as our friends, the kind of people we imagine we are. Of course, if we’re consistent, we’d see every questions like this. We’d say that the violence through which each government acts is a question about who we are, morally, and that our ends do not justify the means we adopt.
February 23, 2010, 5:45 amG. May says:
I don’t think jumping to the extreme of a murder case is really helpful in examining my point. While we’re taking things to extremes, let’s take the case of a mute who never learned how to write or sign. Otherwise, he is a reasonably intelligent person, able to assimilate and process information like any normal person. You can really only communicate with him by asking closed probe questions, so his ability to communicate is somewhat limited, however his reasoning might be perfectly sound.
Now that’s just a silly scenario, but that’s what happens when you leap straight to murder arguments. A more appropriate example would be the case of someone with a personality disorder. A highly educated and informed psychologist or psychiatrist would be able to articulate precisely the traits and behaviors that lead to proper diagnosis, as well as the areas of the brain that are affected along with possible causes for the disorder. A person not trained in the same field (uninformed) might simply say “he’s crazy”, “something’s not right about him”, or any number of phrases. They can arrive at this conclusion based on their own personal experience and levels of socialization.
They may not be able to precisely articulate the problem to the level of an expert, but they can identify it and make the adjustments they deem necessary to deal with it (stay clear of the person, seek medical help, etc). I think the same could easily apply to politics.
February 23, 2010, 10:07 amElliot says:
I take no credit away from Edison or Wozniak, nor do I think 300 million people actually collaborate on any single endeavor. I simply define the accomplishment of a society to include the individual accomplishments of all its members. If there were some other term for that concept, I’d be happy to use it.
I do think any gifted inventor benefits from the general environment in which he does his work. For example his invention may depend on public schools, markets that can deliver necessary equipment, free exchange of information, etc.
I agree there are reasons for political ignorance other than a rational choice to remain ignorant because of the low probability of effecting change. I think that is the position of Prof. Somin. If I mischaracterize him, I apologize, but I’ll leave it to him to handle that position.
My point about the CRP program and the judicial philosophy of nominees is designed to illustrate that rational consumers of information may be tagged as ignorant by those who are themselves ignorant of important political issues, but lack the incentive to become informed about them.
February 23, 2010, 12:17 pmMick says:
Ted said,
“Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
The Venus, 12 US 253, 289 (1814).
Justice Marshall quotes Vattel in the context of who is a citizen, not a “natural-born” citizen. And Vattel’s definition, cited above, suggests that only a single parent need be a citizen, not both. Unless you really intend to argue that natural citizenship is a right only passed through the father, and not a mother.”
That quote is directly from Vattel about Natural Born Citizens, here from Vattel,
““The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”
You know as well as I do that women were not seen as having the same rights as men at that time, thus the reference to only the father. But as a matter of fact, if the mother is unmarried, then the Citizenship derives from the mother only, and the child would not be considered as dual citizen.
February 23, 2010, 12:49 pmMick says:
Ted said,
“Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162, 167–68 (1874) (emphasis added).
It seems to me the Court simply said that one is for sure a natural-born citizen if both one’s parents are citizens. It explicitly refused to decide whether a person born in the US without reference to the citizenship of the parents may be considered a natural born citizen. This does not support, one way or another, the claim that one citizen-parent may not pass citizenship to her offspring.”
No they said that it may be doubtful that the children of aliens were EVEN CITIZENS. Don’t put words in the court’s mouth. In Wong Kim Ark that Minor quote is directly quoted, and found that Wong, born of RESIDENT DOMICILED (not sojourners or illegals) Aliens was a CITIZEN, not a Natural Born citizen.
February 23, 2010, 12:55 pmAllan Walstad says:
Agreed, if we add “time and energy” to “incentive,” and as long as you’re not suggesting hypocrisy.
February 23, 2010, 12:57 pmMick says:
Ted said,
“Mick: Perkins v. Elg (1939)
Finally, in Perkins v. Elg, the Court cited an Attorney General’s opinion with approval that determined a natural-born boy, whose father was a naturalized citizen, but later denounced his citizenship, was indeed a “natural-born” citizen allowed to someday be President. Perkins v. Elg, 307 US 325, 330 (1939). This appears to undermine your position that both parents need to be citizens, as the citizenship of the boy’s mother was not mentioned.”
You need to read the case closely, and realize that the mother at the time was naturalized automatically by marraige to a Naturalized US Citizen husband (until 1934). So both parents were Naturallized citizens and the child was born in the US, which equals Natural Born Citizen. Natural Born Citizenship is a condition of birth, and cannot be taken away as a minor by the actions of the parents.
February 23, 2010, 1:05 pmThis case is also important because it identifies 3 distinct groups of citizens. Miss Elg and Mr. Steinkauler (1)Natural Born Citizens with the ability to become POTUS), born of (2)Naturalized Citizen Parents in the US. While Mr. Bohn (3) American Citizen is born of Aliens in the US.
Mick says:
smrstrauss says:
“I have just read through Perkins V. Elg. It is not a Natural Born Citizen case. However, most likely Elg would have been a Natural Born Citizen according to your “two parents plus born in the USA” doctrine because not only was she born in the USA but her father became a Naturalized citizen before her birth.
There is no mention of her mother being naturalized, but the issue does not revolve around whether Elg was Natural Born in any case. In the Wong Kim Ark decision, it revolves completely around the meaning of Natural Born, and the majority of justices (six to two) held that the meaning stems from the common law and means “born in the country (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats)”.
Ah Mr. Strauss, here with your paid for obfuscation again. You must get alerts whenever i post something about this. Then you trot out the same wrong arguments. First you know that these SCOTUS cases render those state court cases moot (my SCOTUS trumps your state).
February 23, 2010, 1:14 pmSecond, as you well know, wives were automatically Naturalized by marraige until 1934.
Third, the case NO WHERE says that WONG (WKA 1898) is a Natural Born Citizen. It say he is a “Citizen” due to birth in the US to UNNATURALIZEABLE RESIDENT ALIENS, not sojournors or illegals, (parents were subject to the Chines Exclusionary Acts). Your little obfuscatory trick about Citizen by birth equals Natural Born Citizen is found NO WHERE in any SCOTUS case.
smrstrauss says:
Re the Wong case not saying that he was a Natural Born Citizen. It says that he was a citizen and it says that he was Natural Born. Put them together and you get Natural Born Citizen.
NO Supreme Court case has ever held that a child born in the United States is not a Natural Born Citizen.
All the cases that I quoted are Federal cases, and they all ALL, use the term Natural Born Citizen to include the children of foreigners who were born in the USA. This is because the Wong case ruled that every child born in the USA is Natural Born. When a child born in the USA is a citizen (as all are today except for those who relinquished citizenship and the children of foreign diplomats) that child is a Natural Born Citizen.
By the way, I’m not getting paid (not that getting paid is a bad thing).
February 23, 2010, 3:48 pmsmrstrauss says:
Re: “Miss Elg and Mr. Steinkauler (1)Natural Born Citizens with the ability to become POTUS), born of (2)Naturalized Citizen Parents in the US. While Mr. Bohn (3) American Citizen is born of Aliens in the US.”
The Elg case does not revolve around whether Elg is a natural born citizen. She is a natural born citizen under BOTH your definition and my definition. That makes her no more of a Natural Born Citizen than any child born in the USA.
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”
Yale Law Review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not.” (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)
As I said before, no Supreme Court case ever ruled that to be a Natural Born Citizen requires two US parents and birth in the country, and the Wong Kim Ark case says clearly that all children born in the USA are Natural Born. The combination of Natural Birth and citizenship makes a Natural Born Citizen, which is why so many Federal cases have stated that the children of foreigners born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.
February 23, 2010, 3:55 pmMick says:
smrstrauss said,
“The Elg case does not revolve around whether Elg is a natural born citizen. She is a natural born citizen under BOTH your definition and my definition. That makes her no more of a Natural Born Citizen than any child born in the USA.”
There are no cases, including WKA that are about whether anyone is a Natural Born Citizen, including WKA, so of course you lie again (you shouldn’t have to lie if you’re right), but the term has been defined in no less than 4 SCOTUS cases the same way Vattel defined it. NONE define Natural Born Citizen as anything less. Further Miss Elg, born of 2 citizen parents in the US was specifically deeemed a NBC, as was Steinkauler (with the ability to be POTUS), while Mr. Bohn in the dicta of Perkins was deemed an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Thus it clarified the 3 separate levels of citizenship (each with, of course, the same civil rights). Only the Natural Born Citizens are eligible for POTUS as a Security requirement. Wong was deemed a CITIZEN, because he was born of Resident aliens, not a Natural Born Citizen. Like Obama, he was born subject to the citizenship laws of a foreign power, and thus didn’t qualify as a A2S1C4,5 NBC.
February 23, 2010, 4:44 pmMick says:
smrstrauss said,
“All the cases that I quoted are Federal cases, and they all ALL, use the term Natural Born Citizen to include the children of foreigners who were born in the USA. This is because the Wong case ruled that every child born in the USA is Natural Born. When a child born in the USA is a citizen (as all are today except for those who relinquished citizenship and the children of foreign diplomats) that child is a Natural Born Citizen.
By the way, I’m not getting paid (not that getting paid is a bad thing).”
Sure you’re not! SCOTUS holds precedent after WKA (in Perkins v. Elg 1939), and none of those cases was about who can be President.
February 23, 2010, 4:47 pmsmrstrauss says:
The definition of Natural Born Citizen is:
““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.”
All US-born citizens are Natural Born Citizens. That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”
February 23, 2010, 5:09 pmMick says:
I’m glad that you have that saved so that you can paste the nonsense obfuscation anywhere at will! Nice Alinsky tactics! There has been NO SCOTUS case that defines a “Citizen at birth” as a Natural Born Citizen. as a matter of fact, Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition is not in the USC, so it’s certainly not a “born” citizen of the 14 Amendment (1866).
February 23, 2010, 5:57 pmlgm says:
Back to the original question, it may be rational for people to remove themselves from decisions they have little influence over. This saves them the effort of informing themselves on it. What bugs me is people who insist on maximizing their influence without becoming informed.
In a hypothetical rational world, it seems irrational for an agent to exert influence knowing that he (or she) is likely to be wrong, at least if there are more than two choices.
This argument does nothing to excuse the deliberate ignorance from most people on Fox News.
February 24, 2010, 2:00 pmsmrstrauss says:
Re: “There has been NO SCOTUS case that defines a “Citizen at birth” as a Natural Born Citizen. as a matter of fact, Minor v. Happersett (1873) said that the definition is not in the USC, so it’s certainly not a “born” citizen of the 14 Amendment (1866).
The Minor v Happersett case was overturned by Wong Kim Ark, which ruled six to two that all children born in the USA are Natural Born. A citizen who is Natural Born is of course a Natural Born Citizen.
That is why the OVERWHELMING majority of legal experts and Constitutional scholars hold that every child born in the USA is Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats).
Re: “There has been NO SCOTUS case that defines a “Citizen at birth” as a Natural Born Citizen.”
Yes, as we both agree, there has not been any Supreme Court case that ruled on Article II. However, as I said before, there has not been any Supreme Court case (or for that matter any federal case) that ruled that a Natural Born Citizen requires two US parents.
Two of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, Alito and Scalia, had fathers that were born in a foreign country (Italy), and while the fathers MAY have been naturalized before they were born, the fathers also may not have been. Moreover, these two justices may have friends whose parents were naturalized after their birth instead of before. Do you think that they will believe that the framers, who clearly said that the place of birth is the sole criterion of allegiance, believed that a US-born citizen whose parents were not US citizens was any different from a US-born citizen whose parents were citizens.
Andrew Jackson had TWO parents who were not citizens. Birthers reply that this does not count as a precedent because Jackson fell under the provisions of the grandfather clause. Well, sure.
BUT WHAT IF JACKSON WERE RUNNING TODAY? Are you saying that he would not be eligible to be president? There is not a word that any of the writers of the Constitution or any American leader at the time wrote that indicates that “Natural Born” means anything other than what it meant in British common law, which was “born in the country.”
And that is why there are so many US federal cases in which the children of foreigners are called Natural Born Citizens simply because the children were born in the country.
February 24, 2010, 2:04 pm