Customer Reviews

Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Many of us probably have suspected for a long time that our soundbit, infotainmented, and MTVed and Gameboyed culture is eroding our critical skills. As individuals, many of us simply may not care too much. After all, a man's entertainment center is his castle. But as citizens of a democracy, we ought to be concerned. As John Stuart Mill said in the 19th century, the democratic premise rests on the presence of an educated citizenry. Ideas and policies can neither be examined nor tested in the marketplace in the absence of an informed and critical public.

Rick Shenkman's Just How Stupid Are We? not only wholeheartedly embraces Mill's observation, but also eliminates any remaining doubt about the growing inadequacy of the American electorate to participate responsibly in democracy. A few of the chilling facts with which the book is crammed:

--half of us can name 4 characters from "The Simpsons," but less than a quarter can name more than one of the guaranteed rights in the First Amendment.

--only 2 out of 5 voters can name all three branches of the federal government.

--only 1 in 5 know that there are 100 federal senators.

--only 1 in 7 can find Iraq on a map.

--only one-fifth of Americans between ages 18-34 bother to keep up with current events.

How to account for this frightening state of ignorance? And just as importantly, what to do about it?

In answer to the first question, Shenkman suggests that the steady erosion of party and labor bosses, who despite their frequent misuse of power at least tended to keep their followers politically informed, has thrown the average voter to the mercy of shallow network commentary (if that) and corporate manipulation. Moreover, the two main political parties have in their respective ways encouraged the dumbing-down trend. Until recently, conservatives never took populism seriously anyway, and so didn't care how ill-educated citizens were. Progressives, on the other hand, embraced an almost mystical faith in the wisdom of the common man. The upshot, says Shenkman, is that we're now "in the pitiful position [where] neither liberals nor conservatives are prepared to say to The People: stop and pay attention. Liberals cannot because their ideology leaves them unprepared to find fault with The People. Conservatives have not because The People repeatedly put them in power."

Bleak as the present crisis of political literacy is, Shenkman doesn't think that the decline is unstoppable. Some of the ideas for reform he floats include a restoration of electoral college autonomy, a return to state legislatures' selecting federal senators, and successful completion of a civics exam as a prerequisite for voting. These and similar policies, he only partly whimsically says, could be bound up in the passage of a "Too Many Stupid Voters Act."

Shenkman's book is reader-friendly, insightful in places, and provocative throughout. But it may suffer from the same myopia that afflicted John Stuart Mill and others of his ilk: the conviction that all we need to get people involved more responsibly in democracy is education. Americans today have more formal schooling than they ever did. Although we may be a shallow culture, we're probably not stupid. So if more and more of us are turning off from politics and refusing to make ourselves informed about current events, perhaps what's going on is an act of the will rather than a laziness of the mind--apathy born of mistrust or despair rather than sheer illiteracy. If that's the case even in part, more education certainly wouldn't hurt. But it won't solve our current malaise.

I should state at the outset that I agree with the author's core thesis. I think he's on to something when he argues that democracy is only as good as the quality and wisdom of "The People" who are by definition the source of legitimacy under democracy. I think he is absolutely correct that we too often focus our discussion of what ails us on the rotten politicians, the misleading media, and other nefarious forces that are out to bamboozle the voters. While these other factors certainly do merit criticism, Shenkman correctly contends that The People lose the right to complain about the state of their political system when they refuse to follow the news and stay informed on the issues.

Nevertheless, beyond agreeing with this essential point, I didn't find this book as compelling as I thought I would. Basically this short book amounts to a sort of jeremiad against our citizens' lack of political knowledge. It reads quite fast, as I got through it in a few hours, but I didn't feel it brought anything new to the table.

My main problem is that, while Shenkman does succeed in providing further evidence that, yes, Americans aren't terribly bright when it comes to politics, history, and foreign affairs, he doesn't seem to engage in a sustained analysis of WHY. He provides some evidence that the problem has become worse over time. Why? I wish he would have undertaken a more thorough analysis of the educational system. He hardly talks about the internet, except in the last chapter, where he briefly states he believes it holds promise to elevate political discourse (which actually flies in the face of some recent analyses). He reserves most of his criticism for television, to which he devotes a full chapter. I largely agree with his analysis of television, but even here, his critique is incomplete. He places most of the blame on the fact that through television politics has become more superficial and devoid of substance; he hardly talks at all about the fact that the entertainment industry spawned by television provides innumerable distractions from politics and social issues.

I thought the most fascinating part of the book was his historical analysis of the main parties' attitudes towards the masses. He points out that the founding fathers, as well as early 20th century conservatives, were profoundly skeptical regarding the ability of the citizens to make informed decisions. It was only after Republicans started winning at the ballot that they become the anti-elitist party of the common folks.

My main problem with his lack of diagnosis is that he doesn't provide a very clear path for where to go from here. Yes, he does offer some prescriptions for how to heal our body politic in the last chapter, but his proposals seem like an afterthought. There are the usual suggestions to revamp civics education in high school and college. But his main idea for how to reconnect the electorate to the Democratic Party? They must reinvigorate labor unions! Yes, that should solve the problem!

Basically, my main disappointment with the book lies with the fact that Shenkman really is on to something, as he hints at a rarely discussed problem at the core of our society. But in failing to vigorously analyze WHY Americans have become so woefully uninformed about and disengaged from politics, he can't really offer any viable solutions for how to fix the problem.

The "Sage of Baltimore", H.L. Menken, an early 20th Century newspaper man and social critic, once observed that nobody ever went broke by underestimating the taste of the American people. The theme of this book might well be that no politician ever lost an election by underestimating the ignorance of the American voter. In spite of its title this book actually does not argue that the American Voter is stupid. Rather Shenkman contends that the American People are ignorant especially of basic geography and history. Further he argues that they suffer from a terminal attention deficit syndrome. Together these shortcomings routinely prevent the American Public from being able to understand complex thoughts and issues that cannot be reduced to thirty second sound bits. As the book makes clear this is exacerbated by the modern phenomenon of public polling and then treating the results as actual news. As any rational examination demonstrates, most polls are virtually meaningless and even if well conducted the average poll respondent is incapable of understanding or indifferent to what is really being asked. These are harsh judgments, but Shenkman supports them with a good deal antidotal evidence. And he is not alone in his conclusion that the American People may lack the sagacity so often attributed to them by politicians seeking their votes. Any serious reading of the Federalist Papers or indeed the U.S. Constitution will reveal that far from having a faith in the abiding wisdom of the people our founding fathers considered them inflammatory dolts and tried to limit their influence in government. This book suggests that they may have been correct.

Richard Shenkman tells us that he's not saying that the American people are stupid, he's just saying that they are not smart. One thing he will admit to is that our politics are stupid. Why do candidates run campaigns at such a low intellectual level? The answer is obvious: to reach a greater number of voters. In so many indirect ways he answers the question in the title of this book.

Shenkman, who is the editor and founder of George Mason University's History News Network, decided to write this book after listening to George Lakoff's explanation of why Democrats were not winning elections. According to Lakoff, Democrats were not framing the issues in a way that presents Democratic values as American values. Shenkman found this superficial, he thought the problem went deeper. He argues that politics are driven by myths rather than frames. Although there are many myths, the primary one is the wisdom the People and the righteousness of their collective choices. Shenkman resurrects the unpopular notion that the People may not always know what is best for them. There is ample evidence to support his claim.

The Founders were deeply suspicious of the People, for they feared mob rule. Originally, they wanted only the House of Representatives elected by the voters and the Senate would be elected by state legislatures in order to moderate the People's will. Only reluctantly did they yield to the People's demand to elect Senators.

In our own time, conservatives of the 1950's mold were very anti-populist. William Buckley even thought of writing a book that would be his magnum opus called "Revolt Against the Masses." It was not until Nixon and Reagan ran as populists that conservatives started winning elections. Today both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans run in the name of the People, any deviation from this path is electoral suicide. (Just look at the reaction to Phil Gramm's remark that we are a "nation of whiners." How dare he insult the People.)

So why are voters not smart about politics? It would seem that we are better educated and better informed than any previous generation. Shenkman tells us that people have little interest in politics, in fact it's usually last on their list of fun things to do. Shenkman's position is reminiscent of Robert Reich's in Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Vintage). We are more interested in being consumers than we are in being citizens. There is such an abundance of consumer goods and distracting activities that we have become apathetic. The People have neglected the hard work and dedication that politics requires.

Shenkman, who is a liberal, found that the system worked better when at least one political contigent - the conservatives - was not pandering to the People. Now, with everyone pandering - the media included - the system is without checks and balances. To remedy this, Shenkman suggests there should be more civic education so that the voter is better informed, but it is unlikely that the People will endure a civics lesson with so much other entertainment to occupy their time.

Both sides blame the other for America's current problems, and the American people seem blameless. Shenkman, however, takes aim at "the wisdom of the American people" that we so often hear referred. TV has dumbed politics down to the lowest possible level (emphasis on appearance, vs. substance; emphasis on emotional appeals), while reality has become vastly more complicated. (Anyone believe the "issues of the day" in Colonial times were as complex as today?)

Democracy is rooted in the assumption that we are knowledgeable and rational - instead we are hard-wired to myths (eg. 9/11 was punishment for gays, etc., Saddam was behind Bin Laden, they dislike us for our democracy), and know less than necessary for informed decision making. Yet, over the past four decades American politics has put more and more power directly into the hands of ordinary voters through polls (even as they are manipulated to create the illusion of accuracy), initiatives, and primaries. Ignorance, disinclination to seek reliable sources of information, short-sightedness, and susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, and simplistic assertions are more rampant than ever. As evidence, Shenkman points out that presidential speech levels have dropped from the 12th-grade level to the 7th, fewer can state what the political parties stand for, and fewer read newspapers regularly.

Shenkman also believes that our elites have failed us as well - using emotional words (eg. "freedom," "liberty"), and promulgating half-truths (if even that).

"Our democracy is only 200 years old - what makes us think it is permanent?" (Arthur Schlesinger) In less than ten years America has lost millions of jobs with good wages, health care and pension benefits, while piling up trillions in debt for ruinous war and trade policies. At the same time our education and health care systems outpace all others in spending, while lagging in results, and our environment is seriously threatened on several fronts.

Shenkman believes these problems can be cured through eg. mandating civics classes in college. Not likely - becoming an informed, objective citizen is too demanding, requiring extensive knowledge of facts, as well as statistical analysis and the design of experiments.

My favorite line of Shenkman's book was in the "Coda: Hope" chapter at the end where he finally gives his (in my opinion) lackluster suggestions on how to fix things: "If a politician takes a stand on an issue that is obviously calculated to play to the public's uninformed opinions, the media should point this out."

"Ug!" I thought, as I started to roll with laughter on the floor.

This is Shenkman's analysis problem throughout. He assumes it's even possible to take a matter of opinion like that and establish it as fact in the first place. All we have to do is make the fact available and, Shenkman assumes, all will draw the same conclusion. Likewise, his book is riddled with "factual conclusions" that, to be frank, are highly debatable at best.

The problem is that Shenkman is still just human. He is one of The People and he is as "stupid" as the rest of us, so he can't really separate opinion, emotion, beliefs, and facts any better than anyone else. He's just one more blind person leading the blind, I'm afraid.

Still, I admit I liked this book, despite its deep flaws. He is probably the only author I've come across that admits that democracy is a deeply flawed process at best, though arguably better than any alternative. I was worried that he'd indict modern people but give our forefathers a pass, as is commonly done, but he largely avoids this myth, for which I'm glad.

The truth is that human beings have limited resources and survival always takes precedent, so it's irrational to believe that direct democracy can really work. That's why we don't have a direct democracy and it's why the constitution setup a series of safeguards that allowed use of indirect elections so that we are voting for local people we know rather than a face on TV that we don't. (But think we know because they are a good actor.)

This is not because people are "stupid" per se, but just human. And that is my biggest concern with this book. It sets up false dichotomy of "the stupid" and "the author and people like him." Bogus.

If "stupid" means "not always well informed (but think you are) and often easily manipulated through emotion" then there has never been a non-stupid human to walk the earth and never will be. Thus any set of suggestions informed by this opinion are doomed to fail.

I think it makes better sense to not start with the false dichotomy of "the stupid" and "the informed" and instead admit that indirect democracy is better than direct democracy precisely because we are all limited in our ability to be informed -- all of us.

I do agree with many of Shenkman's suggestions. We should go back to the electoral college. We should go back to letting state legislatures elect our senators. We should include "civic classes" at all levels of education. And it would be hilarious to have poll takers also ask those polled a few key questions about their level of knowledge of the issues and report that alongside the poll results. What an eye-opener that would be!

Less convincing is the idea that the public should look to the elite or to party bosses to guide them. I'm afraid I don't trust "the elites" any more than I trust myself, and shouldn't. Again, Shenkman's false dichotomy rears its ugly head.

But I doubt any of Shenkman's suggestions could ever become a reality so long as his premise is that The People are The Stupid. The problem with Shenkman's false dichotomy is that no one considers themselves "the stupid." So Shenkman's book leads us to never look into the mirror and admit our own short comings, but always look at others as the problem. I see no realistic way to sell indirect democracy as a benefit in this way. It might be good for other people, but not for me, of course.

This intriguing book has as its premise that George W. Bush was a terrible president. But the American people voted him into office at least once. That begs the question: Did we deserve him? Are we complicit in his failures? Have the American people turned into dunces?

I couldn't put this book down. Its exploration into sloganeering, conspiracy theories, myth-making, image-driven television news and so much more was fascinating. It made me think.

Another book that touches on this subject is The Assault on Reason by Al Gore. One of his points is that a cause of the decline of reasoned political thought is television. Gore contends that when more Americans started getting their news from TV instead of newspapers, the emphasis changed from reading, an activity that by its nature activates the parts of the brain involved with reasoning, to watching, which elicits emotion but not thought. In Just How Stupid Are We? author Shenkman makes the same point. "The advantage of television is that the viewer can feel and experience politics. But as a transmission belt of information it is far inferior to newspapers. The American people don't hear what you are saying if the pictures are saying something different."

Personally, I believe the American people were not so much stupid as apathetic during the Bush years. When you feel you don't have a voice, you stop talking and turn away.

Here's the chapter list:

1. The Problem
2. Gross Ignorance
3. Are the Voters Irrational?
4. The Importance of Myths
5. Giving Control to the People
6. The Power of Television
7. Our Dumb Politics: The Big Picture
8. Our Mindless Debate About 9/11
9. We Can't Even Talk About How Stupid We Are
Coda: Hope

I think for the most part I agree with this author. However, I'm a bit reluctant to fully recommend this book. While the author presents a lot of statistics to demonstrate his point, statistics can't always be trusted. They can be twisted to paint a picture that doesn't accurately reflect reality. That's not to say that I think his point is wrong; I do think the evidence is compelling enough to support his point, but I take it with a bit of caution.

I also found his section on television compelling, though it's pretty much a summary of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. In it, though, he reveals his bias toward newspaper. It seemed to hint that newspapers are a source of unbiased information, and I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps the main difference between TV and printed news is that TV lends itself more to commentary while printed news leans more toward strict reporting with commentary. But there was still no argument as to why I should trust what I read in the news rather than what I hear and see in the news. I would have appreciated if in the epilogue that pointed to sources of good information that is for the most part unbiased and explained a little more clearly why newspapers do provide a better source of reliable information.

All that said, I found this book to be stimulating. It raises some good questions, identifies key weaknesses, mainly the myth of "The People," and tries to find out why the American Public is as uninformed as it appears to be. I would recommend this book with reservation. It might be good to compliment it with a book like Postman's, another good book on a similar subject.

I've long enjoyed Richard Shenkman's writing and insight by regularly reading History News Network, his website featuring articles by historians on current events, and his new book brilliantly shows how illusion can
cleverly mask reality to the unsuspecting. Shenkman is the type of historian you wished you had in high school, or at least I do. He makes the past relevant, tying it into the present, and then bringing it all home
in an illuminating personal style. His previous book, "Presidential Ambition," brought our Presidents
to life as three-dimensional characters, and now "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter" appears at a perfect time, with the November election looming up ahead.

Derek Alger, managing editor of PIF Magazine

Rick Shenkman's bold book speaks truth to power: he criticizes the majority for being stupid. In America, the majority is king -- it controls the legislature, government, media, business. It controls public thought like Tocqueville wrote. And it doesn't like being criticized. So who will point out that the majority has no clothes? That's why Mr. Shenkman's book has balls. Public ignorance remains "hidden in plain sight".

The worst fault is that people can't even talk about our own stupidity. We may do so privately with friends, but such sentiments are rarely broadcast in the news media or by politicians. A giant "Myth of the People" presumes Americans, collectively, are smart enough to choose their own destiny, and Shenkman argues persuasively we're not.

Mr. Shenkman makes a solid case about voter stupidity. Most people can't answer basic questions about civics or the mechanics of government. Most can't explain the first amendment. Most are ignorant of the outside world. The younger generation is even less interested in public affairs. The public can't handle complexity, follow complex issues, doesn't understand the basics of economics, is suspicious of markets. There is a strong anti-foreign bias. A poll found over 70% thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 in September 2003 (he wasn't).

Voter mistakes fall into four categories: (1) the "drunkards search" -- like a drunk looking for lost car keys only where the light is, voters pick up information passively without working to uncover new information (2) voters remember personal information about candidates and not hard facts about issues (3) voters prefer yes/no answers and abhor uncertainty, but most difficult issues involve uncertainty (4) voters can't see connections between actions and results -- for example, if the economy improves, they'll credit the president, even though there may have been no relation.

Irrational voters mean irrational politics. Even if politicians are rational, he argues, they'd need to conceal the truth from voters about their real views about economics, lest they offend public sentiment.

When voters are not paying attention, they're easily manipulated by "rank appeals to fear based on misinformation" which succeed "in winning the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans". While Mr. Shenkman directs much of his attack against president Bush (II), he has healthy globs of criticism for past presidents of both parties. This work is decidedly non-partisan. Bush II held few press conferences, staged events with sympathetic voters from his own party, used the gay-marriage issue to divide the country, gave tax cuts to the wealthy, and foisted the myth that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda. And people bought it. Seldom did Bush get caught: one exception was when he tried to nominate a seriously under-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court -- his own lawyer Harriet Myers who had never served as a judge -- and his own political base raised a stink which forced him to remove her.

Sometimes the public gets it right, but this happens rarely. Mr. Shenkman thinks the public was correct in assessing that President Clinton didn't deserve to be impeached for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but this was one of the rare occasions when the public actually focused on what was happening because of sex scandal. When people become interested in a subject, they can become "super-powerful" but this rarely happens. The public is easily infatuated with entertaining stuff but this isn't enough; "it takes knowledge and reflection to reach a considered opinion about the budget deficit or national security" he argues forcefully. A great example: a CEO who only read reports he found entertaining would soon be fired; but we can't fire the public.

In the TV age, how a candidate appears is the key to success. Kennedy had a pleasing personality suitable for television; and Shenkman's analysis of the Kennedy presidency is echoed by other scholars, notably Dana Nelson who profiled Kennedy as a myth-maker (see her excellent "Bad for Democracy" in which she argues that people have reduced their political role to the minimal task of voting for president, and then expecting this person to do all the work of democracy for them). Presidents lacking a pleasing personality must resort to raw emotional appeals, employ fear, and fight dirty. Nixon did this. Mondale spoke truthfully about looming budget deficits but was beat by Reagan's emotional "Morning in America" appeals. When politicians act rationally, they can get booted out of office. For example, Bush I promised in his campaign not to raise taxes, but found after the liberal-spending Reagan years that huge budget deficits required tax hikes; when Bush I raised taxes, the irrational fallout from an enraged public upset that the president had broken his promise caused Clinton to be elected. Shenkman argues, persuasively, that a rational public would have agreed that a tax hike was necessary.

Voters don't want truth; they want myths, he argues. Mr. Shenkman thinks myths served a positive function in the past, and that they held the nation together during the Washington presidency. My sense is, however, that myths were a small part of political life in the nation's early years, and that democracy was much more healthy because people participated widely. Mr. Shenkman sees 1840 as a "turning point" because the side with savvier marketing slogan "Tippecanoe & Tyler Too" prevailed over better qualified candidates. I think Mr. Shenkman errs about a turning point; I think democratic decline was gradual and resulted from chains of cause-and-effect relations dating back to the first European settlers. Further, Mr. Shenkman presents a dubious case, in my view, for stating that the electorate became more powerful after the 1950s with the advent of scientific polling, primaries (which cut out political bosses), and increased use of referendums and initiatives. I don't think these things made people more powerful; rather, they gave the illusion of control (see Habermas' excellent "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere"). Political scientists such as Benjamin Ginsberg ("The American Lie") as well as pollsters like David Moore have pretty much revealed what Shenkman himself acknowledges, that polling is a tool to help politicians learn how to sell a message, not as indirect instructions from the majority.

There is intelligent discussion about previous presidents (FDR, Nixon with the infamous "Checkers" speech, and so on). TV ads influence voters bigtime: "the ordinary viewer ... watches the spots, thinks about them for a brief moment or two, then quietly absorbs whatever warped information they happen to convey" then votes! The manipulative Willie Horton ads helped Bush I defeat Dukakis. "It is hard to imagine anybody wanting things to develop as they have" he writes, and I agree.

Mr. Shenkman joins a long list of scholars pointing out serious flaws. Constitutional analysts such as Sanford Levinson ("Our Undemocratic Constitution") suggest it's time to rethink the Constitution and I agree. Special interests control government. Congressional incumbents win 90% of elections suggesting rules have been rigged. The nation is unable to confront serious long term problems such as the specter of nuclear terrorism, environmental issues, social security underfunding.

What are Mr. Shenkman's solutions? And I knew this was where he'd stumble because he misses the bigger picture (not his fault; seeing the big picture is difficult). His solutions: (1) speak honestly about the limitations of public opinion (2) The People should be forced to face their own ignorance (how? broadcasters won't risk viewers tuning out) (3) learn more civics in school (a marginal benefit at best) (4) have "democracy parties" (I'm trying not to laugh here) (5) voluntary associations (better -- he's read Tocqueville) (6) return to political parties (wrong way, in my view, because rampant partisanship is a big part of America's problem and political parties contribute to the mess).

My solutions? I think America is broken, dysfunctional, and corrupt that only a Constitutional Convention can restore democracy back to health.

Thomas W. Sulcer
Author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web; google title + Sulcer)