Dumb claims about political smarts
Published March 19, 2014
By John Hood
by John Hood, John Locke Foundation and NC SPN panelist, March 29, 2014.
One of the cheapest shots in politics is to claim that only the unschooled and ignorant could possibly side with the other team. Both Democrats and Republicans make the claim about the other party. Democrats ridicule Republican-leaning voters for being dumb rednecks and undereducated boobs. Republicans ridicule Democratic-leaning voters for being empty-headed kids and school dropouts. Fox News viewers think MSNBC viewers are sheep. MSNBC viewers think Fox viewers are fools.
The real fools are those who think electoral politics is an intelligence test.
There are plenty of smart, informed people in North Carolina and elsewhere who vote Democratic, read The New York Times in addition to their local papers, watch MSNBC, and listen to NPR. There are plenty of smart, informed people in North Carolina and elsewhere who vote Republican, read The Wall Street Journal in addition to their local papers, watch Fox News, and listen to talk radio. If you want to know the characteristics that strongly predict political preferences, you won’t find them in educational credentials or news attentiveness.
Let’s start with that last point. Most carefully constructed surveys do not find substantial partisan differences when it comes to knowledge of current events. For example, a 2013 poll by the Pew Research Center asked respondents 13 questions on such topics as same-sex marriage, the Middle East, the U.S. Senate, the Federal Reserve, and education reform. Republicans gave an average of 6.5 correct answers. Democrats gave an average of 6.4 correct answers. Independents? They gave an average of 6.6 correct answers. Democrats, Republicans, and independents were also closely grouped in Pew’s January 2013 survey of public knowledge, while previous surveys have shown, at best, a small Republican edge.
Now, take a look at the 2012 exit poll in North Carolina, where Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama by two percentage points. Republicans are right to point out that Barack Obama won the high-school dropout vote, 57 percent to 40 percent. But that’s not much of an argument. Dropouts represented only 5 percent of the electorate. In the remaining categories — high school graduates, voters who attended college but didn’t graduate, those who graduated college, and those with postgraduate degrees — the differences in presidential preference just weren’t very large.
Among North Carolinians with at least some college education, for example, Romney edged Obama by a 51-48 margin. Among college graduates, Obama edged Romney by a 50-49 margin. Given the survey’s sample size, these are not statistically significant differences.
Education isn’t a major dividing line in politics at the moment, at least not in North Carolina. But age is. Young voters between 18 and 29 voted overwhelmingly (67-32) for Obama. Voters over 65 voted overwhelmingly (64-35) for Romney.
Another major dividing line is religiosity. Among North Carolinians who attend church at least once a week, Romney got 56 percent of the vote. Among those who never attend church, Obama won 64 percent. Family structure matters a lot, too. Married voters went 60-39 for Romney. Married voters with children also picked Romney, by 57-43. Unmarried voters went 61-37 for Obama.
Here’s a particularly interesting one: 55 percent of native North Carolinians picked Romney. So did those voters who moved to North Carolina sometime before 2002, although the gap was just outside the margin of error (52-47). On the other hand, 62 percent of recent arrivals to North Carolina picked Obama.
I suppose it’s natural to assume that if a person disagrees with you, it must be because that person is not as informed or logical as you are. But natural impulses don’t always serve us well. Political differences do not, by and large, arise because of differences in information or education level, according to the preponderance of empirical data.
When politicians or political commentators resort to insulting the other side’s intelligence, that signals either that they have run out of real arguments to make or that they have run out of the patience necessary to continue the debate. Neither is a flattering revelation.
March 19, 2014 at 10:48 am
Norm Kelly says:
I'm not sure I'd refer to anyone who watches any variety of NBC or CNN as informed or educated. I'd also not suggest that anyone who watches Fox News is the best at selecting political candidates/office holders.
However, it is interesting to note that those who have some life experience appear to be able to better judge the future than those who are young and inexperienced. Older voters, of which I am one, voted for freedom while young, idealistic, inexperienced voters went for the obviously socialist politician. The young, idealistic, inexperienced decided that a politician who promised something for nothing sounded better than the candidate who hinted at self-reliance and independence. (note: a real conservative wouldn't have simply hinted at self-reliance. it would have been a central plank.)
It seems that recent survey results, referenced by John, show that the old adage is true. If you aren't a liberal when you are young, if you aren't a conservative as you age, then you have no heart & ability to think logically. I know that's not exactly how it goes, but it is what it amounts to.
Nothing that comes from the government is free. Somewhere along the line someone has to pay for it. Libs just don't believe this is true. Libs appear to believe that money does grow on trees. They also appear to believe that people who are successful (make more money than themselves) do it/did it by stepping on someone else, keeping someone else down, or taking advantage of someone less fortunate to get where they are. It seems that a preponderance of libs believe it actually is the governments role to take these ill-gotten gains away from successful people and GIVE it to 'the less fortunate'. Even if the 'less fortunate' are simply disinterested in taking care of themselves.
I don't try to claim I am smarter than the average bear. But I do wonder why so many people fail to see the trees when they are in the middle of the forest. Why is it that libs continue to believe the government can and should get involved in every area of every persons life, even when shown that they fail every time? Why is it that when libs are shown that the country is going bankrupt because of uncontrolled central planner spending, they fail to understand that reducing spending is the only way to resolve the issue? Facts is facts, after all. These are not just my ideas, but these are actually facts. Socialized medicine is actually driving up the cost of health care in the country. Socialized medicine actually WILL NOT have the effect of reducing the number of uninsured in the country. Socialized medicine actually is driving the deficit to unseen levels. Yet libs continue to believe that socialized medicine is the way to go. Libs like K, Harry, Nancy continue to push 'the benefits' of socialized medicine and completely ignore FACTS. Which is my biggest problem with libs. The ability to ignore facts and talk around them like I don't recognize them either.
