Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Thursday, May 22, 2008

In order to temper the giddiness of Obama fans who may assume that victory in November is assured, I wish to discuss the candidate's greatest obstacle:

Voter ignorance.

It's not easy to raise this topic. It seems to be OK in this country to malign educated people, to dismiss them as "eggheads" and "latte-sippers," probably because there is a sizeable anti-intellectual strain in our culture. But I would suggest that stupid people should also be ripe for open discussion - if only because millions of willfully clueless voters may well function as the swing decision-makers in a close '08 presidential election.

And since we're finally talking about ignorance, I offer Exhibit A - the report of a focus group, featuring 12 independent voters, that was conducted earlier this week in swing-state Virginia by the noted Democratic pollster, Peter Hart.

Hart yesterday circulated this report to folks like me. He took pains to point out, in his summary, that his 12 focus-group participants are not close followers of politics. None of them voted in Virginia's Democratic or Republican primaries. All of them feel like "the election has been going on forever," but none of them have bothered to learn anything about it. All they know is what they have heard - or, more significantly, misheard. And these independents are potentially pivotal in November; in Hart's words, they "represent 20 percent of the electorate."

Kind of a big decision, don't you think? Choosing the next president? Yet, as Hart put it, much of what they know, or think they know, is "truly chilling."

For instance, here's Dorita, opining about Obama: "I'm a little concerned. I don't know enough about his Muslim background and their beliefs and how he views everything. I'm a little concerned. I need to check his background."

You do that, Dorita.

Here's Josh on Obama: "He's representing a minority in more than one case. He is African American and he is Muslim. And in light of that...it does feel like we're being judged or pounded down on because we want to carry a gun or we want to wear the American flag pin."

Here's Melinda, clearly the GOP's dream voter: "I just really feel like he's...not a people pleaser as in the Americans, but the other people who don't necessarily need to be pleased, the other, the enemies if you will, I don't know. I'm just not real positive on that."

Hart reports that whenever somebody volunteered that Obama is a Muslim (which he isn't), nobody in the room protested or sought to correct the inaccuracy. Hart writes: "When asked to raise their hands if they think that Obama is a Muslim, seven of the 12 do, including two voters who currently support him over McCain. One person mentions that she has heard something about him and the Pledge of Allegiance" - this would be the lie that he doesn't place his hand over his heart while reciting it - "and another believes that he was sworn in to the Senate with his hand on the Koran," whereas, in factual-reality world, this Christian was sworn in on a Bible.

Hart continues: "The importance is not that they are misinformed, but that there is such a gross lack of awareness about a presidential candidate who has written so fully and completely on his background and his childhood." But Hart is being too kind. These people - and millions like them, by his estimate - are willfully ignorant because they won't take five minutes to educate themselves on the basics.

Granted, they surely lead busy lives, they have every right to assign politics a low priority, and there is no reason to assume that they would like Obama any better if they armed themselves with accurate information. Fine. But at least they would not be so oblivious. All it takes to raise one's political IQ, in this era of instant communications, is a few clicks on the mouse or a few readings of a decent newspaper.

All told, Hart concludes: "For Barack Obama, who is on the verge of becoming the Democratic nominee, this must feel a little bit like the children's game of Chutes and Ladders, where as one climbs the ladder to a new plateau there is a new chute awaiting that sends the player back to the beginning." In other words, "it is time (for Obama) to start all over again in his introduction" to the electorate.

Fortunately for Obama, however, "he has an ample opportunity to tell his story," because these voters are so fed up with the Bush administration that they will strongly entertain a Democratic alternative.

Perhaps...as long as they can learn to distinguish between Obama from McCain on the issues. Because here's Danny, one of your fellow citizens:

"(The race) has gone on so long....They all kind of say the same thing. They're all saying the same thing, so what's to get excited about?"

Really? McCain and Obama are "saying the same thing"? Perhaps the maligned "eggheads" can enlighten Danny about that.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 8:28 AM  Permalink | 89 comments
Comments   
Posted 09:04 AM, 05/22/2008
MiddleNameHussein
Typical of the elite liberal media - they think everyone is dumb except them. And if you actually figure out how to get out of bed and find your poling place, if you don't vote Baraq Hussein Obama, you're just a dumb hick who can walk.
Posted 09:26 AM, 05/22/2008
tom - wilmington, de
While not as harsh as the prior post, I too am a little taken aback by today's entry. A lot of people who vote do not closely follow politics. Many are single issue voters (how many vote Dem or Rep based solely on pro-choice/pro-life stances); many vote a party line because that is how they are registered, or that is how their parents vote; many cast their ballot based on endorsements (union members based on who their union endorses...why else would the union endorse them); some vote based on scandals (Mark Foley, macacca, etc.); and millions probably vote based on perception of a candidate (elitist, I could have a beer with him, he thinks he invented the internet, etc.). So, who are we to chastise our fellow citizens.....people who vote based on any of the aforementioned reasons I just gave are just as ignorant as those whom are written about in today's blog entry. That however does not make them any smarter or dumber than any one of us who happen to follow politics.....we can get it just as wrong as them, and we all also have preconceived notions about each of the candidates. When was the last time our blogging host said ANYTHING positive about ANY Republican?
Posted 09:39 AM, 05/22/2008
syj
when you tell the truth you get criticized so I assume Polman will get a lot of flak for this. Many American voters are dumb and that explains a lot about the incompetent politicians we have on all levels. While many will spin this post as anti-GOP and pro Obama the fact of the matter is that this type of ignorance helps politicians on both sides in local, state and congressional elections. This is why its a miracle that Nutter was able to get elected when he ran a campaign that talked about adult issues. He ran against 3 people who ran typical Philly campaigns that tried to get out the ignorant vote last May and that likely worked to his advantage. There was so much panderiing out there that his rivals split the ignorant vote up and left him in 1st place. BTW, voting on a single issue, especially when that issue isnt relevant in a particular election, is stupid plain and simple. I dont care if you're a democrat or a republicant it's stupid. When people like those in the focus group represent a huge chunk of the voter turnout its no wonder we have such an ineffective government. The funny part is that the folks who want to defend ignorant voters dont have the sense to understand that the politicians pandering for their votes think they are stupid and thus taylor their message to appeal to those voters.
Posted 09:49 AM, 05/22/2008
yobill626
There does seem to be a portion of the electorate that seems to embrace their political ignorance as a badge of honor. Its one thing to be dumb --- lacking intelligence, but when you talk to some of these nitwits who can recount the smallest detail about their favorite sports team, you have to get angry. Its OK with me if you are happy & carefree in your ignorance, but when you take that ignorance with you & go into a voting booth, that's when it affects the rest of us. You need to pass a test in order to drive a car, why not to vote as well?
Posted 10:15 AM, 05/22/2008
Fredclaims
Yo Tom: When is the last time a Republican DID anything positive?
Posted 10:26 AM, 05/22/2008
Markus ur Alias
Most of this is because of the GOP's successful viral e-mail campaign. I have NO idea why the dems can't do this. Middlenamehussein, you ARE a dumb hick.
Comment removed.
Posted 10:33 AM, 05/22/2008
Rich LeBlanc
I actually (not sarcastically) agree with yobill626 too. I think anyone who wants to vote should have to pass the same test that immigrants have to pass in order to become citizens. I bet 85% of the native-born citizens could not pass. That would be the end of self-made morons electing one of their own as President, or anything else above the level of dog catcher.
Posted 10:49 AM, 05/22/2008
anonymous
Pass a test? Sorry but that is completely contrary to the democratic process. What is needed is public shaming of those who don't bother to take at least some time to educate themselves. There are plenty of uneducated people in this country who actually do take the time to learn about the candidates and follow the elections. Sadly, in this country, we do coddle those take pride in their ignorance and heap abuse on those "latte-sippers" who want to be informed. We have it backwards. That is the root of the problem.
Posted 11:00 AM, 05/22/2008
t_dmanns
Tom, there are single issue voters out there, however they are at least informed about their single issue. A pro-life voter can tell you which candidate is pro-life. Ignorance is another issue. If the religous belief of a candidate is important to you, find out what the candidate actually believes. Bush has been elected twice, partly because of peoples willingness to believe false rumors about his opponents.
Posted 11:01 AM, 05/22/2008
chris duckworth
Dick Polman wrote: "in factual-reality world, this Christian was sworn in on a Bible." This is incorrect. In reality, no member of Congress is sworn in on any religious book. That is not part of the swearing in ceremony. Members of Congress are sworn in en masse by raising their right hand and reciting an oath, or pledge. The photos you see of members of Congress with the Speaker or the President of the Senate, along with their family Bible and family members, is just a photo-op.
Posted 11:41 AM, 05/22/2008
davec
While misinformed voters, single-issue voters, etc. make up a huge percentage of the electorate in any election, I actaully think that in this case, it will work towards Obama's favor. For all the votes Obama will lose because people think he's a Muslim, or Anti-American, or an elitist, or whatever other incorrect and superficial reason, he will more than make up for them with the votes from people that know nothing about him except he isn't an old white guy like the previous 43 presidnets were. So as irritating as it must be for Obama to have so much of your personal life so accessible yet egregiously misconstrued, I don't think that will cost him the election should he lose.
Posted 12:01 PM, 05/22/2008
JimR
You may be a single issue voter but you still need to be aware of the bigger picture. Yobill is on to it. There are a lot of people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor. They can give you sports stats but don't know what's going on in congress. Government is work - knowing it and living it. We just don't seem to place a great weight on being educated about anything. I was out of the country part of last week and was surprised at how much middle and lower class people had going in their local politics. They had the need to know. Folks here seem to be amazed at what THEIR candidates do a year or two into the term. It's because they had no idea what THEIR candidate was all about. The late William Buckley (that elitist!) railed against the ignorant voter for a long time. The fact that smear campaigns work is testament to the ignorance of voters and the Internet has given us the ability to spread the stupidity. (Legal)Immigrants are required to pass a test to become citizens in the U.S. I'd love to see how many people born and raised here could pass the same test.
Posted 12:06 PM, 05/22/2008
JimR
BTW, I've posted on this site for a couple of years. What's with comments completely evaporating or showing up hours later? I don't use bad language or racist insults but some stuff never appears. Any regulars having similar problems?
Posted 12:09 PM, 05/22/2008
p-diddy
Yes, there are masses of willfully ignorant people out there. Like many others on the board, I've vented about this in the past and probably will again before the elections are over in November. The thing is, people who are willfully ignorant are not necessarily stupid. For example, take the first poster on this thread, who refers to Obama as "Baraq Hussein Obama". This poster almost certainly knows that Obama is not a Muslim, yet pretends not to know in order to help fuel ignorance. Likewise, politicians court ignorance when ignorance helps to achieve their goals. How many times did the Bush administration and its supporters connect Iraq to the 9/11 bombings? I still meet people who think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the politically calculating and the ignorant. Although I agree with Polman's column, I think he fails to acknowledge both the role of the media and government officials. Instead of indulging our ignorance and prejudices (McNews, entertainment news, politicians drinking shots) they ought to challenge our ignorance and prejudices. That's what real leadership is.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.