JUST HOW DUMB IS THE AMERICAN VOTER?????

Rick Shenkman, the editor and founder of George Mason University's History News Network, a website that features articles by historians on current events. An associate professor of history at George Mason University, he can regularly be seen on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. He is a New York Times best-selling author of six history books, including Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History and Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done (HarperCollins, 1999). His latest book is Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter (Basic Books, June 2008). Click here to read his blog, How Stupid?

FP: Rick Shenkman, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Shenkman: Thank you for inviting me to do the interview.

What inspired you to write this book?

Shenkman: Like all books mine followed a long and twisting road to publication. It began oddly enough with a bike ride. It was August 2005. I was listening to the audio version of George Lakoff's bestseller Don't Think of an Elephant as I rode to work. And frankly I was appalled at what I considered the superficiality of his analysis of the Democrats' problems. He seemed to think that if only the Democrats framed issues better they'd win because, as he put it, Democratic values are American values.

I decided then and there to write a book explaining that what drives American politics are myths. And myths are a lot more complicated than the frames Lakoff talks about. They have to do with who we are and what values we cherish and how these values evolved through our history. Having written 3 books about myths Americans hold about history I felt prepared to tackle the subject. I thought it was shocking that Howard Dean, the new head of the Democratic Party, was turning Lakoff into a party oracle, recommending that people read and study his books. The Democratic Party's problems went a lot deeper than Lakoff seemed to think.

I settled on 8 myths and sent off a proposal to several publishers. After Basic Books expressed interest in the project I had a long conversation on the phone with editor Lara Heimert, whose father I happened to have had as a teacher at Harvard when I was in graduate school. She recommended that I settle on one myth to give the book a tight focus. The obvious one--she and I agreed--in light of the Iraq War was the myth of The People. While most critics of the war focused their ire on the Bush administration, citing for example the misleading claim that Saddam was somehow mixed up with 9-11, I felt that by 2005 that approach was already tired. What I wanted to do was turn a spotlight on the American voter. How could so many people have fallen for the administration's dropped hints about the link between Saddam and 9-11? Why did some 60 percent on the eve of the Iraq War believe that Saddam was implicated in 9-11? Why did 50 percent of the public continue to believe this even after the 9-11 Commission reported a year later that there was no connection, a story that was headlined by the media across the country? What did the history of the last few years say about the American people that so many were sitting ducks for misinformation? And what did that say about American politics?

As I got into my research, which plunged me into the work of social scientists whom I'd never encountered before, it slowly dawned on me that I was grappling with one of the great subjects democracies face. To put it bluntly, it's this: Are people smart enough to govern themselves intelligently? And if they are, why then are our politics so often so stupid? That was what I set out to discover.

Well, before we go on, with all due respect, I am not so sure that the 9-11 Commission is a great example of wisdom, truth and accuracy. And by no means is it a fact that the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection has been discredited; actually there is much evidence to the contrary. First of all, Norman Podhoretz has dealt a lethal blow to the “Bush Lied” argument in general in his powerful piece, Who Is Lying About Iraq? And Stephen F. Hayes, for instance, has demonstrated ample evidence on the Saddam-Osama link.

But in any case, we are not here to have this debate today. Perhaps we can return to it in another time and place. Our positions are clear.

Let’s move on.

So in your view, why are American politics so often about what you would term depressingly stupid subjects?

Shenkman: Why during the primary campaign did we talk endlessly about Barack Obama's bowling score and Hillary Clinton's grabbing a drink at a bar during a photo op? Why did voters listening to Obama swoon when he spoke when all he spoke about was "change" as if the very word "change" actually meant something concrete. Why did Clinton then start talking about "change" and then McCain? Would Lincoln and Douglas have talked about something as nebulous as "change" as a great theme of an election?

The answer is simple, though we don't like to admit it. Politicians conduct their campaigns at a distressingly low level because the voters don't know enough or care enough about politics to sit through a sober and rational debate about issues. Knowing this smart pols--and Obama, Clinton and McCain are all very smart--pitch their campaigns at low intellectual levels in order to connect with ordinary voters.

We like to blame the pols and the media for the empty-headedness of our politics--the proliferation of slogans, bumper stickers and the like--but it's the voters' limited knowledge and interest that is the underlying cause.

Give us some examples of what you have found to be, well, how can I put this -- perhaps a shortage of intelligence among a significant section of the American public.

Shenkman: First, I want to be clear that I am not saying the American people are stupid. It would be stupid to say that --as stupid as saying the American people are smart, which politicians say all the time. It's impossible to generalize about 300 million people. But our politics are often stupid. And there are times when no other word, harsh as it is, seems to capture the essence of the turn politics have taken.

That said, the survey data over half half a century indicate that most Americans know little about politics an don't make an effort to know more. In the 1990s, Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter undertook a comprehensive review of surveys measuring Americans' knowledge of politics. The results were shocking. They found that only 14 percent could correctly answer three-fourths of basic questions about foreign policy, barely a passing grade. And foreign policy oddly was one of their best subjects. Only 11 percent could pass a test involving questions about domestic policy, and only 5 percent an economics test. (Americans' best subject was history, though there aren't many history teachers who would find this easy to believe.)

Here are some concrete examples. Only two in 10 know we have 100 US senators. Only four in 10 know we have three branches of government and can name them. Only a third know that Congress has the power to declare war. Only half of our citizens know that the country that dropped the atomic bomb is their own.

Someone once said that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. But they were overly optimistic. Five years after the war in Iraq began only one in seven Americans can locate Iraq on a map.

So why are so many Americans so apathetic about politics at a time when it is crucial for them to pay attention?

Shenkman: Well, this year they have been showing they are less apathetic. Democrats at least are energized. But even the people showing up at Obama's vast rallies seem to have been drawn mainly by the spectacle, his youth, his smile, and his vague call for "hope."

People by and large don't care about politics. When I was the managing editor of the CBS affiliate in Seattle we commissioned a million dollar research study to find out what our viewers were interested in. Politics came in dead last, behind weather and sports. In the 18th century Ben Franklin said that we are all politicians. But in the 21st century we no longer are. This is no longer a citizen's republic, it's a consumer's republic. In a consumer society, as John Dewey warned in the 1920s, people are so distracted by the diversions available to them--going to the movies, driving a car, watching sports events--that they ignore politics. Few of us think of ourselves any longer as citizens. Our most meaningful identity is as consumers. Ours is a culture built around entertainment. Politics demands commitment and hard work. The two are usually incompatible except in circumstances like the Obama rallies where politics and entertainment are married.

What social forces do you think have helped dumb discussion of politics down?

Shenkman: Here we face a paradox. Decade by decade Americans have been getting smarter and smarter, judging at least by the number of years they spend in school, and decade by decade our politics have been getting dumber and dumber. How can we explain it?

In 1940 six in 10 Americans hadn't gone past the eighth grade. Today, most Americans have attended college. Partly as a result of their added schooling, Americans today are more tolerant of dissent and less racist. But surveys show that increased schooling doesn't correspond to a higher aptitude for civics. To put this bluntly: Americans today are no better informed about politics than their grade-school educated grandparents. With respect to some subjects they are less well-informed.

How did we get here? Well, as I indicated above in a consumer's republic people find better things to occupy their time than politics. But other forces have been at work as well. Television is of course a big part of the problem. Once television replaced newspapers as the chief source of news--this happened around 1965--shallowness was inescapable as Americans began judging politicians by how they looked and acted. Another factor was the collapse of the traditional two-party system and unions. Once voters stopped taking their cues from party and labor bosses, they were largely on their own as they sorted through the complicated choices they face.

Since people don't know much about politics they make decisions based on emotion and myths. Myths are particularly important. I argue in the book that myths drive our politics and have ever since the masses got the vote in the 1820s. Since most people don't know much about politics pols use myths in place of facts to win over voters. Complicated arguments involving facts fly over people's heads. But a myth that touches on deep cultural values--think the Declaration of Independence's all men are created equal--can be a powerful draw.

The most important myth pols play off of is the myth of the common man. Think of the lengths Al Gore went to in 2000 to connect to ordinary voters. Although he was the son of a US senator and grew up in a hotel in Washington DC where he attended one of the finest prep schools in the country, he would talk to voters about his summertime visits to his grandpappy's farm where he plowed muddy fields. For good measure he'd throw in a story about his mother working for 25 cent tips when she was a young woman. All pols do this sort of thing to create a bond with ordinary Americans and to break down the social barriers between themselves and ordinary folk. That's why Obama went bowling and Clinton knocked back a drink in a bar.

Can you talk a bit about the notion that people get the government they deserve?

Shenkman: We Americans love to blame everybody but ourselves for our problems. It's easy to blame others. You can always point a finger at a bad president or a big bad corporation or the media. But it takes courage to take a good long look in the mirror and courage of that sort is lacking in our county today. I call in the book on Americans to exercise courage to hold ourselves accountable for our mistakes.

Why don't we as a rule talk openly about weaknesses in public opinion in this country? Is it a new development in our history that we don't?

Shenkman: One of the main points of the book is to draw attention to the fact that a fundamental change has taken place in our political debates even though no one talks about it. Formerly, throughout American history, conservatives drew attention to the failures of the public to grapple with hard issues and their propensity for easy and misleading answers. As Hamilton might have put it, the voice of the people isn't the voice of God. This was a healthy aspect of our system. While liberals celebrated The People, it was helpful that conservatives chastised them from time to time. But nowadays we're all populists. Both the left and the right celebrate The People's wisdom (though after the election of 2004 some liberals began to reconsider their position though few went beyond sneering). The change began in the 1960s when conservatives realized they could appeal to white working-class voters alienated by the Great Society, welfare, affirmative action, school desegregation and open housing. In 1980 Ronald Reagan sealed the change. A former Roosevelt New Dealer, he was always inclined to celebrate The People. One of his great appeals was that h was an optimist who made ordinary people feel good about themselves and their country. Once he started winning elections it became unnecessary for conservatives to attack The People's wisdom. Obviously, if they kept returning conservatives to power they must be smart.

While the change in the conservative's playbook was smart politics, it was terrible for our democracy. Someone in our system needs to remind us that The People are often misguided. But today no one does. The media should of course play this role but don't. Like pols, they are out to pander to people too. So the system's out of kilter.

The Left likes to argue that big corporations are running the country. You argue that we've never been as democratic as we are. What do you say to the Left?

Shenkman: The left is stuck in a political rut, convinced at a deep emotional level that nothing has changed since the Progressive Era when corporations were in charge and politicians were bought and paid for. This is a terrific political strategy. It means never having to say to your base that they might be responsible for things that have gone wrong. While corporations remain powerful, of course, the system is far more democratic than it has ever been. Blacks and women vote. Important measures are put on the ballot for people to vote on directly. Candidates for the presidency are now selected in primaries. And the public pulse is taken daily by pollsters. Politicians in turn are highly sensitive to public opinion.

To be sure, special interests of on kind or another still exert influence in Washington. The number of lobbyists in the capital has doubled since 2000. In all matters that are complicated in which the public as a result is largely a bystander these lobbyists exercise an outsize influence. But never before has the public exerted its will more powerfully than now

Is this book going to please either the Left or the Right?

Shenkman: My guess is that from the title most people think the book is a liberal attack on Bush and that I am echoing the bloggers who sneered that The People must be dumb to have voted for Bush. No one who gets to the first page will think that however. As I say in the Author's Note: "I am convinced that it is too easy to blame our mess on Mr. Bush. And I do not believe that his replacement by a leader who is less partisan and more competent and sensitive to civil liberties will begin to remedy what ails us. What went wrong, went wrong long before Mr. Bush’s ascendancy. His flaws simply gave us the unwelcome opportunity of seeing what heretofore had remained largely invisible."

While I am an unabashed liberal and have been for a couple of decades, the book reflects the conservative ideas I was exposed to in my twenties when I was a Republican who attended seminars put on by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The critique I offer draws on the books celebrated by ISI and conservatives of old: Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, Walter Lippmann's The Public Philosophy, Bill Buckley's Up from Liberalism.

So there's plenty in the book that conservatives will find familiar, if not exactly entirely pleasing. Liberals on the other hand will be pleased that I begin the book by showing how the Bush administration misled people about the war.

In other words, there's a little something in the book that both left and right will find reassuring even as they resist other parts.

What are some of your suggestions to resuscitate civic responsibility and to arm America citizens with information that can help them to participate meaningfully in politics? In other words: solutions?

Shenkman: I am a historian not a policy maker, but my editor insisted that I offer some solutions so I do at the end of the book. One, we need a crash program in civics. I'd have the Congress pass a law requiring all schools of higher learning that receive federal funding to give incoming freshmen current events quizzes for a semester or a full year. I'd amend the No Child Left Behind Act to include civics in addition to reading and math. I'd revive labor unions so that more people took their cues from labor leaders. I'd revive the political parties so that they perform an educational function as they once did.

My firm belief is that voters left largely on their own will not take the time to become fully engaged public citizens. To become knowledgeable they need to be part of mass groups. Perhaps web 2.0 will help by creating new social networks of voters. What we know is that people are social animals not political animals. So they need to be a part of larger groups to become politically engaged.

Most importantly, we have to recognize we have a problem. Like alcoholics, this is the first step that needs to be taken if we are to reform both ourselves and our system.