I vote therefore I am clueless
April 2, 2018 12:48 PM Subscribe
Voter Behavior: The Power of Groupthink in Trump's America - a special report (SLEconomist) "...people may well decide which candidate they like and then ascribe policies they approve of to him or her, often incorrectly. Each presidential-election year the ANES asks voters to place themselves on a spectrum with “many more services” on the left to “reduce spending a lot” on the right, and then to place the two main political parties somewhere on that spectrum. About 15% decline, or say they have not thought about it. The same number, more or less, will place themselves but cannot place the parties, meaning that 30% of the electorate does not have a good sense of where Republicans and Democrats stand on the most fundamental question about the role of the state."
"The ANES also asks voters whether the Republicans or Democrats are more conservative, and found that some 15% of Trump voters thought the Democrats were the more conservative party (as did 6% of Clinton voters). Add in the don’t knows, and 16% of Clinton voters and 24% of Trump voters were not sure which party was more conservative."
"Most voters make political choices based largely on what people like them are doing, and rarely change their minds. For example, it is hard to think of two more different candidates, in temperament, style and policy, than Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, yet more than 90% of those who voted for Mr Romney in the presidential election in 2012 also voted for Mr Trump this time, according to the ANES. The same share of Obama voters also backed Hillary Clinton. Those who expect Republican voters to desert Mr Trump each time a scandal breaks should bear this in mind."
"This kind of groupthink is so powerful that it shapes the way people see the world around them. Right after the election, and more than two months before Mr Trump took office, Republicans told pollsters that their personal finances were in much better shape than they had been the week before the ballot. Democrats said the opposite. The question had nothing to do with politics, and yet the answers given were somehow conditioned by the election. "
"The ANES also asks voters whether the Republicans or Democrats are more conservative, and found that some 15% of Trump voters thought the Democrats were the more conservative party (as did 6% of Clinton voters). Add in the don’t knows, and 16% of Clinton voters and 24% of Trump voters were not sure which party was more conservative."
"Most voters make political choices based largely on what people like them are doing, and rarely change their minds. For example, it is hard to think of two more different candidates, in temperament, style and policy, than Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, yet more than 90% of those who voted for Mr Romney in the presidential election in 2012 also voted for Mr Trump this time, according to the ANES. The same share of Obama voters also backed Hillary Clinton. Those who expect Republican voters to desert Mr Trump each time a scandal breaks should bear this in mind."
"This kind of groupthink is so powerful that it shapes the way people see the world around them. Right after the election, and more than two months before Mr Trump took office, Republicans told pollsters that their personal finances were in much better shape than they had been the week before the ballot. Democrats said the opposite. The question had nothing to do with politics, and yet the answers given were somehow conditioned by the election. "
So picking a political team is the equivalent of picking a sports team, which you then root for through thick and thin.
No, and we really need to stop with this metaphor, because it hinders understanding in exchange for glibness. The reality is that people vote not just on specific "policy", but also on other socioeconomic factors. For example, white evangelicals stick with the GOP because they can make deals with the party to get social policy they want, as opposed to the Democratic Party, which is opposed to their policies.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:13 PM on April 2, 2018 [18 favorites]
No, and we really need to stop with this metaphor, because it hinders understanding in exchange for glibness. The reality is that people vote not just on specific "policy", but also on other socioeconomic factors. For example, white evangelicals stick with the GOP because they can make deals with the party to get social policy they want, as opposed to the Democratic Party, which is opposed to their policies.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:13 PM on April 2, 2018 [18 favorites]
Republicans are for less spending? Maybe that's what they say, but that's not been true in my lifetime. In fact, it's grossly wrong. Reagan borrowed money like there was no tomorrow, and Bush handed the surplus over to the rich.
posted by xammerboy at 1:14 PM on April 2, 2018 [49 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 1:14 PM on April 2, 2018 [49 favorites]
Excuse me, I’ll be over here weeping and pouring liquor on my Cheerios.
posted by corb at 1:16 PM on April 2, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by corb at 1:16 PM on April 2, 2018 [15 favorites]
Excuse me, I’ll be over here weeping and pouring liquor on my Cheerios.
Cheerios? That's a REPUBLICAN cereal. BOOOOOOOO!
posted by lalochezia at 1:18 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
So picking a political team is the equivalent of picking a sports team, which you then root for through thick and thin.
Sort of, or that's part of it, but people don't just draw their party ID out of a hat. I study American politics but not mass behavior, and so am inexpert, but I would suggest looking at it like this:
Most/a lot of people don't pay very much attention to politics, generally because they have more important or immediate things to worry about. Most/a lot of people end up being picking their party because that seems to be what people like them generally do, however they happen to build "like them" for themselves. And, yeah, those people tend not to know much about politics, and often ascribe things that sound nice to Their Team even what that's incorrect.
But it's still the case that party ID sorts itself out fairly well, with people you would expect to be Democrats if they were paying lots of attention to politics still being Democrats. They're just not doing it for that reason, even though the obvious policy reasons for African-Americans to favor Democrats are still out there and still real.
Like: Most of us believe the Earth is round or that you can't exceed the speed of light, even though we haven't done any experiments to demonstrate these things. Instead, we just trust people and books we hold as authorities. We're still believing the right things, even if we didn't arrive at them for the "correct" reasons.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:24 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
Sort of, or that's part of it, but people don't just draw their party ID out of a hat. I study American politics but not mass behavior, and so am inexpert, but I would suggest looking at it like this:
Most/a lot of people don't pay very much attention to politics, generally because they have more important or immediate things to worry about. Most/a lot of people end up being picking their party because that seems to be what people like them generally do, however they happen to build "like them" for themselves. And, yeah, those people tend not to know much about politics, and often ascribe things that sound nice to Their Team even what that's incorrect.
But it's still the case that party ID sorts itself out fairly well, with people you would expect to be Democrats if they were paying lots of attention to politics still being Democrats. They're just not doing it for that reason, even though the obvious policy reasons for African-Americans to favor Democrats are still out there and still real.
Like: Most of us believe the Earth is round or that you can't exceed the speed of light, even though we haven't done any experiments to demonstrate these things. Instead, we just trust people and books we hold as authorities. We're still believing the right things, even if we didn't arrive at them for the "correct" reasons.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:24 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
Excuse me, I’ll be over here weeping and pouring liquor on my Cheerios.
If it helps, studying earlier elections reveals that Americans were, by and large, dumb as a box of rocks then too. Just slightly different kinds of dumb and inattentive.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:26 PM on April 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
If it helps, studying earlier elections reveals that Americans were, by and large, dumb as a box of rocks then too. Just slightly different kinds of dumb and inattentive.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:26 PM on April 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
As a Democrat some of the things I'm for are greatly reduced spending on the military, a "tax cut" or negative tax for the poor and unemployed, as well as housing for the homeless and a public option for healthcare, two "services" that arguably save money. I also very much believe in a graduated tax plan and the "inheritance" / "death' tax to shore up our government funds. I'm not at all convinced that Republicans are interested in reducing spending over Democrats. Similarly, a lot of the "services" I want as a Democrat involve little to no government oversight. So I guess I would fail this test.
posted by xammerboy at 1:28 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by xammerboy at 1:28 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
This is what happens when you are faced between ideological purity vs. viability. You can have a candidate you are totally inline with, but who has no chance of winning. So do you vote for the Independent? Or do you go Team Democrat? When you vote your interests, even though you know your candidate is a "spoiler" candidate, you are told things like, "Hope you're happy with your third party vote! A vote for that person is a vote for Trump!" And if you vote Team Democrat to keep the hounds of hell at bay, you are forced to pick the "lesser of two evils," and you still end up with Trump.
And I would suggest that a lot of the party positions (on either side) are 90% marketing and 10% actual policy. It doesn't pay to be an issues voter half the time. Either neither party represents your views, or the "wrong" party does. This is why wedge issues are so effective. Guns, god, and abortion. Everything else is just semantics.
If you ask me which party is more fiscally conservative, I'm not sure I could answer. One brands themselves as such, but they spend like mad. The other doesn't pretend to not want to spend your money, and does indeed spend it. Which party is the education party? Got me. Schools languish and teacher pay sucks under both. I could go on.
And no, I am not saying, "Both parties are just as bad," but rather, when you only get two choices, neither choice is likely to represent you. Once you find the issue that you cannot compromise on, your party is pretty much chosen. And once you've chosen, you will make every excuse in the book as to why your side is the side that thinks along your lines. Look at the Evangelicals and Trump.
It gets more confusing if your most important issue isn't a wedge issue, like the War on Drugs. Both parties, have been fighting that one. One perhaps more zealously than the other, but if legalization or an end to prohibition is your aim, I'm not certain which party you should be aligning yourself with.
Personally, I would love to see a dismantling on the two party system. Just go to a scrum where everyone can run in one big primary and the top two performers go onto round two. I might even be able to pick a not-bat-shit crazy candidate from the other party.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:32 PM on April 2, 2018 [12 favorites]
And I would suggest that a lot of the party positions (on either side) are 90% marketing and 10% actual policy. It doesn't pay to be an issues voter half the time. Either neither party represents your views, or the "wrong" party does. This is why wedge issues are so effective. Guns, god, and abortion. Everything else is just semantics.
If you ask me which party is more fiscally conservative, I'm not sure I could answer. One brands themselves as such, but they spend like mad. The other doesn't pretend to not want to spend your money, and does indeed spend it. Which party is the education party? Got me. Schools languish and teacher pay sucks under both. I could go on.
And no, I am not saying, "Both parties are just as bad," but rather, when you only get two choices, neither choice is likely to represent you. Once you find the issue that you cannot compromise on, your party is pretty much chosen. And once you've chosen, you will make every excuse in the book as to why your side is the side that thinks along your lines. Look at the Evangelicals and Trump.
It gets more confusing if your most important issue isn't a wedge issue, like the War on Drugs. Both parties, have been fighting that one. One perhaps more zealously than the other, but if legalization or an end to prohibition is your aim, I'm not certain which party you should be aligning yourself with.
Personally, I would love to see a dismantling on the two party system. Just go to a scrum where everyone can run in one big primary and the top two performers go onto round two. I might even be able to pick a not-bat-shit crazy candidate from the other party.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:32 PM on April 2, 2018 [12 favorites]
For example, white evangelicals stick with the GOP because they can make deals with the party to get social policy they want, as opposed to the Democratic Party, which is opposed to their policies.
The article explicitly says people don't do that (over time - it makes no comment about how they initially pick).
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:35 PM on April 2, 2018 [6 favorites]
The article explicitly says people don't do that (over time - it makes no comment about how they initially pick).
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:35 PM on April 2, 2018 [6 favorites]
Am I indoctrinated? Have I drank the Kool-Aid? Maybe. I've only ever voted for Democrats, and never Republicans.
On the other hand, I believe in government, I work for the government, and I generally want to see more socialism.
I'm *profoundly* disappointed that the Democratic party doesn't push hard enough, that they're milquetoast cowards who attempt to triangulate, and I'll be damned if I count myself among their members. That said, when one party is "government can work," and one party is "government doesn't work, dismantle it," I have to vote for the former.
It's not a matter of teams. I actively have looked for that "good, conservative Republican." They don't exist. Not even here in Massachusetts.
posted by explosion at 1:37 PM on April 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
On the other hand, I believe in government, I work for the government, and I generally want to see more socialism.
I'm *profoundly* disappointed that the Democratic party doesn't push hard enough, that they're milquetoast cowards who attempt to triangulate, and I'll be damned if I count myself among their members. That said, when one party is "government can work," and one party is "government doesn't work, dismantle it," I have to vote for the former.
It's not a matter of teams. I actively have looked for that "good, conservative Republican." They don't exist. Not even here in Massachusetts.
posted by explosion at 1:37 PM on April 2, 2018 [13 favorites]
according to an analysis by Mssrs Achen and Bartels of a study in which the same voters were re-interviewed year after year, about half of men who were anti-abortion and voted Democrat in 1982 had become pro-choice Democrats 15 years later, changing their position to align it with their party’s thinking.
CF: people's positions on issues, even big tent ones, are malleable.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
CF: people's positions on issues, even big tent ones, are malleable.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
"This kind of groupthink is so powerful that it shapes the way people see the world around them. Right after the election, and more than two months before Mr Trump took office, Republicans told pollsters that their personal finances were in much better shape than they had been the week before the ballot. Democrats said the opposite. The question had nothing to do with politics, and yet the answers given were somehow conditioned by the election. "
My ha-ha-only-serious answer would be that Democrats spent a boatload of money on booze, and likely mentally revised their projections on how much money they need to live.
My comfort with my financial situation is based on how my bank balance and income compares to projected expenses. It's not unreasonable that others feel the same way, and that they might project higher personal expenses under a Trump administration.
"Mr. Smith, how are your finances?"
"Pretty good, Bob. Obamacare's been a real life-saver. Cindy-Lou has a chronic condition that would bankrupt us without the Affordable Care Act."
"Mr. Smith, how are your finances now, a week later?"
"Not good, Bob. Trump is promising to repeal the ACA, so we're tightening our belts already."
posted by explosion at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [20 favorites]
My ha-ha-only-serious answer would be that Democrats spent a boatload of money on booze, and likely mentally revised their projections on how much money they need to live.
My comfort with my financial situation is based on how my bank balance and income compares to projected expenses. It's not unreasonable that others feel the same way, and that they might project higher personal expenses under a Trump administration.
"Mr. Smith, how are your finances?"
"Pretty good, Bob. Obamacare's been a real life-saver. Cindy-Lou has a chronic condition that would bankrupt us without the Affordable Care Act."
"Mr. Smith, how are your finances now, a week later?"
"Not good, Bob. Trump is promising to repeal the ACA, so we're tightening our belts already."
posted by explosion at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [20 favorites]
So picking a political team is the equivalent of picking a sports team, which you then root for through thick and thin.
And political coverage is often just about who will win and who will lose - there is very little substantial coverage of policy positions. It is all about talking points and scandals and how they will play to the voters.
Sometimes the scandals are important because it tells you about how that person might behave in office. But the focus in mainstream coverage is less on what happened and more on how people are reacting to what happened.
On the other hand, I believe in government, I work for the government, and I generally want to see more socialism.
If you know how your own personal politics differ from the politics of the party that you usually vote for - as in, you're aware of actual information about this beyond talking points - then you're more educated than most voters.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
And political coverage is often just about who will win and who will lose - there is very little substantial coverage of policy positions. It is all about talking points and scandals and how they will play to the voters.
Sometimes the scandals are important because it tells you about how that person might behave in office. But the focus in mainstream coverage is less on what happened and more on how people are reacting to what happened.
On the other hand, I believe in government, I work for the government, and I generally want to see more socialism.
If you know how your own personal politics differ from the politics of the party that you usually vote for - as in, you're aware of actual information about this beyond talking points - then you're more educated than most voters.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
"Am I indoctrinated? Have I drank the Kool-Aid? Maybe. I've only ever voted for Democrats, and never Republicans."
Probably. It is probably in your best interest to vote for some Republicans, even if you support the platform of the Democratic party. Look, not for a legislator, sheriff, judge, mayor, or president... But ballets are filled with positions like 'port commissioner', 'county engineer', 'county coroner', positions that are pretty orthogonal to the platforms of the party. Positions that you want to look and see if their opposition (for the folks holding the position already) have good critiques regarding why the person shouldn't be re-elected. If the county engineer is a good engineer and no one can give me a good reason why he shouldn't be reelected, I really don't care about his general political perspective.
posted by el io at 1:49 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
Probably. It is probably in your best interest to vote for some Republicans, even if you support the platform of the Democratic party. Look, not for a legislator, sheriff, judge, mayor, or president... But ballets are filled with positions like 'port commissioner', 'county engineer', 'county coroner', positions that are pretty orthogonal to the platforms of the party. Positions that you want to look and see if their opposition (for the folks holding the position already) have good critiques regarding why the person shouldn't be re-elected. If the county engineer is a good engineer and no one can give me a good reason why he shouldn't be reelected, I really don't care about his general political perspective.
posted by el io at 1:49 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
Every single person posting in this thread is in the tiny minority of voters who actively follow politics, and this article isn't about you.
posted by theodolite at 1:49 PM on April 2, 2018 [57 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 1:49 PM on April 2, 2018 [57 favorites]
It is like picking a sports team. You don't choose your sports team glibly. It's based on a wide variety of socioeconomic factors, largely passed down from one generation to the next with each generation, unlikely to be changed by evidence. But political identity is shaped by generational cultural events that will make Boomer Democrats look very different from Millennial Democrats.
I hate when we say that it's because people are clueless. The data absolutely does not support that. Instead voters are rationally slow to respond to new information, creating a political identity that is sticky.
What we're seeing is the political fall-out from the 1960s when the Democratic party finally fractured over civil rights and Republicans officially lost their legacy as the Party of Lincoln when Nixon pivoted sharply from courting the black vote to courting the Southern vote.
So you have a lot of Southern white folks who still discount the idea that one party might be better on race. Particularly since white folks are more likely to believe that we had a national problem on race, but the civil rights legislation fixed it. (I was raised with this story of history, which went unquestioned until going to a college with only 40% white people)
Once you have a full narrative to back up your belief, you're very slow to change your mind. You are understandably skeptical of information that goes against your worldview, and our culture of journalism exacerbates this by highlighting the new and novel over the developing, so our understanding becomes stale and outdated. We forget that our initial understanding was based on assumptions that could have been incomplete or wrong.
People who are highly informed are actually more likely to be wrong and less likely to change their mind when confronted with conflicting evidence. So again, this is not about people being dumb or clueless. Instead it's a side effect of the confidence associated with being intelligent and having access to more information than at any other time in human history.
posted by politikitty at 1:50 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
I hate when we say that it's because people are clueless. The data absolutely does not support that. Instead voters are rationally slow to respond to new information, creating a political identity that is sticky.
What we're seeing is the political fall-out from the 1960s when the Democratic party finally fractured over civil rights and Republicans officially lost their legacy as the Party of Lincoln when Nixon pivoted sharply from courting the black vote to courting the Southern vote.
So you have a lot of Southern white folks who still discount the idea that one party might be better on race. Particularly since white folks are more likely to believe that we had a national problem on race, but the civil rights legislation fixed it. (I was raised with this story of history, which went unquestioned until going to a college with only 40% white people)
Once you have a full narrative to back up your belief, you're very slow to change your mind. You are understandably skeptical of information that goes against your worldview, and our culture of journalism exacerbates this by highlighting the new and novel over the developing, so our understanding becomes stale and outdated. We forget that our initial understanding was based on assumptions that could have been incomplete or wrong.
People who are highly informed are actually more likely to be wrong and less likely to change their mind when confronted with conflicting evidence. So again, this is not about people being dumb or clueless. Instead it's a side effect of the confidence associated with being intelligent and having access to more information than at any other time in human history.
posted by politikitty at 1:50 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
And while my answer is that structurally "both sides do it", I think the defining cultural events have pushed that towards Republicans. Between the Cold War and Global Terrorism happening under largely Republican presidents, we've created Republicans more stubbornly clinging to social fear of anything feeling remotely like Communism or Terrorism.
Democrats, being out of power, are more likely to look towards the nuances in those policies. But if you look at their actions from the 30s-60s when they had Congressional control, you'll start to see evidence that it really isn't partisan specific.
posted by politikitty at 1:59 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Democrats, being out of power, are more likely to look towards the nuances in those policies. But if you look at their actions from the 30s-60s when they had Congressional control, you'll start to see evidence that it really isn't partisan specific.
posted by politikitty at 1:59 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
What we're seeing is the political fall-out from the 1960s when the Democratic party finally fractured over civil rights and Republicans officially lost their legacy as the Party of Lincoln when Nixon pivoted sharply from courting the black vote to courting the Southern vote.
I have a friend who insists the modern political arrangement is very much the fallout of Kissinger's policies, expanded through Reagan and continued straight through to Trump.
I don't know anything about Kissinger, and have been considering an AskMe to find out if people could explain the background.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 2:02 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
I have a friend who insists the modern political arrangement is very much the fallout of Kissinger's policies, expanded through Reagan and continued straight through to Trump.
I don't know anything about Kissinger, and have been considering an AskMe to find out if people could explain the background.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 2:02 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
People who are highly informed are actually more likely to be wrong and less likely to change their mind when confronted with conflicting evidence.
Do you have a cite or some kind of evidence for this claim? Because I don't buy it at all. From what I've seen, it's the low information voters who cling to to whatever misinformation they've been handed.
posted by orange swan at 2:18 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Do you have a cite or some kind of evidence for this claim? Because I don't buy it at all. From what I've seen, it's the low information voters who cling to to whatever misinformation they've been handed.
posted by orange swan at 2:18 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Do you have a cite or some kind of evidence for this claim? Because I don't buy it at all.
So, if more information is presented and you don't change your mind does that prove you right or wrong?
posted by FJT at 2:25 PM on April 2, 2018 [7 favorites]
So, if more information is presented and you don't change your mind does that prove you right or wrong?
posted by FJT at 2:25 PM on April 2, 2018 [7 favorites]
Politics is groupthink and I reject that. All I'm interested in are things from the political process that will benefit me. Not people like me or that I might agree with or the nation or the world at-large. Me. Since my immersion into politics almost five decades ago I have periodically evaluated parties and policies on what they have produced for me, be it positive or negative in my accounting. I disregard promises, rhetoric or calls to man the barricades. What have you tangibly done for me? Not unlike the upper crust who seemingly always support and vote for their own narrow, self-enriching interests, it's all about me. And guess who I vote for most consistently...
posted by jim in austin at 2:27 PM on April 2, 2018
posted by jim in austin at 2:27 PM on April 2, 2018
Y'all are thinking way too hard about this. 20% of voters (averaging the numbers for Trump and Clinton voters) either don't know which party is more conservative, or think they know but are wrong.
1 in 5 voters just has no fucking idea what is going on with politics. People don't know things. People make decisions based on stuff they don't know squat about, or misconceptions, or a vague idea that it's what they're supposed to do, or because someone they dislike is doing the opposite. Not just in politics, everywhere. If you examine your own life critically enough you'll find areas where you do it too, I promise.
People are not always rational, informed, thoughtful beings who make carefully-considered decisions based on the available evidence. Humans have many wonderful qualities but we are also animals, and we do dumb stuff a lot of the time.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:30 PM on April 2, 2018 [15 favorites]
1 in 5 voters just has no fucking idea what is going on with politics. People don't know things. People make decisions based on stuff they don't know squat about, or misconceptions, or a vague idea that it's what they're supposed to do, or because someone they dislike is doing the opposite. Not just in politics, everywhere. If you examine your own life critically enough you'll find areas where you do it too, I promise.
People are not always rational, informed, thoughtful beings who make carefully-considered decisions based on the available evidence. Humans have many wonderful qualities but we are also animals, and we do dumb stuff a lot of the time.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:30 PM on April 2, 2018 [15 favorites]
I'll have to get back to you on that. I still have my notes from my Public Opinion class 15 years ago since google isn't quite finding the right study. But it was a series of tests. And while low/mid information voters were more likely to not know the correct answer, they were more aware of the limits of their knowledge and willing to change their mind.
The problem is that high information doesn't distinguish between the quality of the data. But it's essentially the same thing we see in Science publishing. By not publishing the null or undetermined findings, we skew our understanding of the world based on novel findings. So it includes someone who watches 12 hours of FOX news and a professor of Political Science.
posted by politikitty at 2:31 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
The problem is that high information doesn't distinguish between the quality of the data. But it's essentially the same thing we see in Science publishing. By not publishing the null or undetermined findings, we skew our understanding of the world based on novel findings. So it includes someone who watches 12 hours of FOX news and a professor of Political Science.
posted by politikitty at 2:31 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
Y'all are thinking way too hard about this.
Well, since the legitimacy of our government rests on this, I think it's worth thinking a little bit hard.
posted by politikitty at 2:32 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
Well, since the legitimacy of our government rests on this, I think it's worth thinking a little bit hard.
posted by politikitty at 2:32 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
Yabbut making complicated defenses of our own well-considered individual political choices is kind of missing the point, is what I'm saying. The point is that people are ill-informed but they just go ahead and do stuff anyway. That's not, like, a brand new revelation or anything but it's also not a very complex idea.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:36 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:36 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
So it includes someone who watches 12 hours of FOX news and a professor of Political Science.
If that's the case, then no, high information voters (meaning someone who has, say, a good understanding of how government works and what an electoral candidate's relevant qualifications are and what their platform actually entails) are not more likely to be wrong and to refuse to change their mind when they are presented with contradictory evidence. Someone who watches Fox continually is not "high information", but is rather highly misinformed.
posted by orange swan at 2:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
If that's the case, then no, high information voters (meaning someone who has, say, a good understanding of how government works and what an electoral candidate's relevant qualifications are and what their platform actually entails) are not more likely to be wrong and to refuse to change their mind when they are presented with contradictory evidence. Someone who watches Fox continually is not "high information", but is rather highly misinformed.
posted by orange swan at 2:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [3 favorites]
I agree with you that most people are ill-informed about politics and everything else besides, but the fact that voters don't know which party is "more conservative" isn't a kind of ill-informedness to bemoan. It's about as useful as knowing which beer is "more drinkable."
I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall, but I presume that the data also covers voter knowledge about specific policy positions. That part seems much more relevant.
posted by value of information at 2:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall, but I presume that the data also covers voter knowledge about specific policy positions. That part seems much more relevant.
posted by value of information at 2:43 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
Could someone remind us again why democracy is such a good idea? (sigh)
Answering my own question: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."- Winston Churchill
posted by PhineasGage at 2:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
Answering my own question: "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."- Winston Churchill
posted by PhineasGage at 2:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [4 favorites]
By the way, I enjoyed reading Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter on the topic of what kinds of things the average voter knows and what policies they are inclined to support. Even if you disagree with his economics, which you probably do, you may enjoy all of the data presented about voters' predilections.
posted by value of information at 2:48 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by value of information at 2:48 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
I'd be happy if people just got a little bit of a clue as to how our system works, or at least could recognize when they are lacking info. It's a complicated system and you really do have to pay very close attention over the long term in order to understand it's ins and outs, but just being able to recognize that you need to Google a thing before forming an opinion would be a massive improvement. I canvassed for a local race recently where my candidate is trying to primary a Democrat from the left. It turns out that canvassing for a midterm primary entails a huge amount of being a civics teacher (which is cool because I literally have a degree in being a civics teacher). We have closed primaries, so only Democrats can vote in this race and I got assured by several contacts that they'd be sure to vote for my candidate because they're a Democrat and will of course vote for the Democrat. I'd say, well, this is a primary, so it's only Democrats and what's happening here is one Democrat is challenging another for the nomination. I got a lot of "wait, that's a thing?" side-eye. I also got asked if I was canvassing for the high-profile federal special election that had already concluded in a neighboring district. Like, we already won that one, that was federal and this is state, and you're not in the district it was in anyway.
posted by soren_lorensen at 3:40 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 3:40 PM on April 2, 2018 [5 favorites]
I wish I could take this survey prior to reading the article.
posted by jferg at 3:45 PM on April 2, 2018
posted by jferg at 3:45 PM on April 2, 2018
Well, if you want you can download the questionnaire and follow along, but there won't be anything to tabulate or analyze your responses for you.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:01 PM on April 2, 2018
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 4:01 PM on April 2, 2018
Kuklinksi and Quick usually get props for being the first to tease apart the difference between ignorant and misinformed voters. They were concerned about the fact that partisans were more likely to be wrong, and more confident they were correct, and created a springboard for a lot more detailed research.
Here's a paper that specifically discusses the effects of education on the likelihood of believing misinformation about the Iraq War.
posted by politikitty at 4:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [7 favorites]
Here's a paper that specifically discusses the effects of education on the likelihood of believing misinformation about the Iraq War.
posted by politikitty at 4:44 PM on April 2, 2018 [7 favorites]
Am I blind? Is "Conveniently, they are less than 200 miles apart" the last sentence of this article? I don't see any way to find the rest of it or a paywall blocking it. It just ends.
posted by HotToddy at 5:06 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by HotToddy at 5:06 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
HotToddy, it's the same for me. There's a selection of "More in this special report" sub-articles on the left side, but I hit the paywall when clicking on any of them (even in private browsing window).
posted by scose at 6:39 PM on April 2, 2018
posted by scose at 6:39 PM on April 2, 2018
I think a certain segment of the population was so viscerally uncomfortable with the concept of Obama being president (due to his skin color, his poise, etc) that the more dissimilar a candidate seemed, the better. It’s Newton’s third law playing out in politics. Hence, Trump.
I also think the left has been having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on for a while now, because it sells. I had to ask myself, am I able to objectively evaluate decisions Trump makes? Could I *ever* support something he does? It’s possible that at some point he’ll do something that is net beneficial, and it would probably be to everyone’s benefit if it was appreciated as such, to help disprove his suspicion that the media is being very unfair to him. But it’s hard to think about ever supporting one of his initiatives, because he has been painted as such an antichrist by everyone around me and all the media I consume, that supporting something he does would signal something about me to those around me. I imagine that people on the other end of the spectrum thought the same thing about Obama. I’d like to think that I’m better than that, that I can evaluate policies objectively. I’m still working through those thoughts.
I’d like to get away from the political polarization and get back to discussing issues. How can we expect people to get educated when the headline political news looks like a page out of a tabloid? It sells to one half of the political spectrum, and further alienates the other half.
posted by mantecol at 9:03 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
I also think the left has been having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on for a while now, because it sells. I had to ask myself, am I able to objectively evaluate decisions Trump makes? Could I *ever* support something he does? It’s possible that at some point he’ll do something that is net beneficial, and it would probably be to everyone’s benefit if it was appreciated as such, to help disprove his suspicion that the media is being very unfair to him. But it’s hard to think about ever supporting one of his initiatives, because he has been painted as such an antichrist by everyone around me and all the media I consume, that supporting something he does would signal something about me to those around me. I imagine that people on the other end of the spectrum thought the same thing about Obama. I’d like to think that I’m better than that, that I can evaluate policies objectively. I’m still working through those thoughts.
I’d like to get away from the political polarization and get back to discussing issues. How can we expect people to get educated when the headline political news looks like a page out of a tabloid? It sells to one half of the political spectrum, and further alienates the other half.
posted by mantecol at 9:03 PM on April 2, 2018 [2 favorites]
There's a steady stream of articles worrying about dumb voters, but I have to say, dumb people can rarely match smart people for sheer pigheaded wrongness.
(And I know, Trump is a challenge for this theory. But a) the main problem with Trump himself is not his stupidity but his meanness; and b) though he can't be controlled, he can sure be used, and much smarter people like Ryan and McConnell are thoroughly using him.)
posted by zompist at 12:36 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
(And I know, Trump is a challenge for this theory. But a) the main problem with Trump himself is not his stupidity but his meanness; and b) though he can't be controlled, he can sure be used, and much smarter people like Ryan and McConnell are thoroughly using him.)
posted by zompist at 12:36 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
Like: Most of us believe the Earth is round or that you can't exceed the speed of light
I guarantee you not more than three Americans in every hundred would be able to offer up this observation unaided. We tend to vastly overestimate the effectiveness of education (and, indeed, of the whole Enlightenment project our notions of education descend from) based on our own experience — and as has already been observed, everyone reading or commenting on this thread is by definition sharply atypical of the gen pop.
So picking a political team is the equivalent of picking a sports team, which you then root for through thick and thin.
No, and we really need to stop with this metaphor, because it hinders understanding in exchange for glibness.
Glib it may be, but it does happen to be what this study demonstrates. Political allegiance is tribal, and I'm willing to bet that, but for a nubbin of single-issue ideologues and/or pocketbook issues, the overwhelming majority of expressed policy positions are, too. My sense is that 'twas ever thus, but it certainly does seem to be the case now, and the finding is salient: the only way to move policy leftward is to turn more people into self-professed and self-understood leftists.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:08 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
I guarantee you not more than three Americans in every hundred would be able to offer up this observation unaided. We tend to vastly overestimate the effectiveness of education (and, indeed, of the whole Enlightenment project our notions of education descend from) based on our own experience — and as has already been observed, everyone reading or commenting on this thread is by definition sharply atypical of the gen pop.
So picking a political team is the equivalent of picking a sports team, which you then root for through thick and thin.
No, and we really need to stop with this metaphor, because it hinders understanding in exchange for glibness.
Glib it may be, but it does happen to be what this study demonstrates. Political allegiance is tribal, and I'm willing to bet that, but for a nubbin of single-issue ideologues and/or pocketbook issues, the overwhelming majority of expressed policy positions are, too. My sense is that 'twas ever thus, but it certainly does seem to be the case now, and the finding is salient: the only way to move policy leftward is to turn more people into self-professed and self-understood leftists.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:08 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
I don't know anything about Kissinger, and have been considering an AskMe to find out if people could explain the background.
The framing he would prefer that we apply: Realpolitik. The truth has more to do with his involvement in the bombing of Cambodia and his support of brutal repression in Latin America, including Allende's Chile and the Argentinian Dirty War.
By Nuremberg standards, the man is a war criminal many times over. What he deserves is damnatio memoriae, not any kind of cod-redemptive comic turn, and his career should have ended at the gallows.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:18 AM on April 3, 2018 [10 favorites]
The framing he would prefer that we apply: Realpolitik. The truth has more to do with his involvement in the bombing of Cambodia and his support of brutal repression in Latin America, including Allende's Chile and the Argentinian Dirty War.
By Nuremberg standards, the man is a war criminal many times over. What he deserves is damnatio memoriae, not any kind of cod-redemptive comic turn, and his career should have ended at the gallows.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:18 AM on April 3, 2018 [10 favorites]
am I able to objectively evaluate decisions Trump makes?
Personally, I would need to see evidence that Trump is capable of making decisions, rather than simply reacting out of immediate emotion or impulse with zero consideration of circumstance or consequence, before engaging in such a hypothetical.
posted by halation at 4:27 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
Personally, I would need to see evidence that Trump is capable of making decisions, rather than simply reacting out of immediate emotion or impulse with zero consideration of circumstance or consequence, before engaging in such a hypothetical.
posted by halation at 4:27 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
It is probably in your best interest to vote for some Republicans, even if you support the platform of the Democratic party. Look, not for a legislator, sheriff, judge, mayor, or president... But ballets are filled with positions like 'port commissioner', 'county engineer', 'county coroner', positions that are pretty orthogonal to the platforms of the party.
Kim Davis says hi.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [15 favorites]
Kim Davis says hi.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 7:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [15 favorites]
It is probably in your best interest to vote for some Republicans, even if you support the platform of the Democratic party. Look, not for a legislator, sheriff, judge, mayor, or president... But ballets are filled with positions like 'port commissioner', 'county engineer', 'county coroner', positions that are pretty orthogonal to the platforms of the party.
Wow that could not be more wrong. Like, simply could not be more wrong. Politics are never, ever orthogonal to any elected position. Ever. The fact that you (and probably other) people think that way is dangerously ignorant of how the world works.
On preview: yes, Kim Davis is a perfect example, and no, her "personal" beliefs and morals are not separable from her politics, as we saw.
posted by tzikeh at 8:15 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
Wow that could not be more wrong. Like, simply could not be more wrong. Politics are never, ever orthogonal to any elected position. Ever. The fact that you (and probably other) people think that way is dangerously ignorant of how the world works.
On preview: yes, Kim Davis is a perfect example, and no, her "personal" beliefs and morals are not separable from her politics, as we saw.
posted by tzikeh at 8:15 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
These dog catcher positions are how parties build deep benches. The GOP has had a strategy of training and supporting people to run for and win these piddling offices because there's a clear trajectory from dog catcher to school board to city council to state House to Congress. And that applies not just to the candidate themselves but their staff--you need a deep bench not just of office-holders but also their campaign managers, their chiefs of staff, their campaign volunteers. They played a long game and so far they've won. Democrats for some reason seem to think that the only election that matters is the Federal Executive branch and that is demonstrably just untrue and it's why we keep losing and why every time we look around to find leaders there aren't any. Leaders aren't just birthed fully-formed from a clam shell, they are cultivated from extremely small ball local politics.
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 8:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [8 favorites]
I also think the left has been having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on for a while now, because it sells.
This is a deeply hurtful and insulting thing to say, in addition to being very badly wrong. All people of good will are "having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on," and will continue to do so as long as he continues to be a public actor, because the man, and his enablers, and everything they stand for are utterly inimical to any decent set of values, not to mention the continued existence of highly organized human life on this planet.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [14 favorites]
This is a deeply hurtful and insulting thing to say, in addition to being very badly wrong. All people of good will are "having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on," and will continue to do so as long as he continues to be a public actor, because the man, and his enablers, and everything they stand for are utterly inimical to any decent set of values, not to mention the continued existence of highly organized human life on this planet.
posted by adamgreenfield at 8:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [14 favorites]
16% of Clinton voters and 24% of Trump voters were not sure which party was more conservative
I’m not sure I know, either. I mean, we associate “conservative” with “Republican” because that’s how they brand themselves, but the current incarnation of the a Republican party is marked by graft, corruption, runaway budgets, violent enforcement of immigration law, and support for a greedy and adulterous fool. They refuse to acknowledge scientific consensus on climate change and are actively making the situation worse. They support unnecessary wars and choose saber-rattling over diplomacy. None of this is “conservative” in any typical definition. Democrats, on the other hand, value fiscal restraint, statesmanship, diplomacy, care for the environment, and support for public schools and working families, and the inherent rights of all people to marry, present themselves as they wish, and be protected from discrimination. That’s only “liberal” in comparison to the Republicans.
What America actually has is one centrist party and one radically reactionary party flirting with fascism. Liberal and conservative aren’t very descriptive in the current moment.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:25 AM on April 3, 2018 [11 favorites]
I’m not sure I know, either. I mean, we associate “conservative” with “Republican” because that’s how they brand themselves, but the current incarnation of the a Republican party is marked by graft, corruption, runaway budgets, violent enforcement of immigration law, and support for a greedy and adulterous fool. They refuse to acknowledge scientific consensus on climate change and are actively making the situation worse. They support unnecessary wars and choose saber-rattling over diplomacy. None of this is “conservative” in any typical definition. Democrats, on the other hand, value fiscal restraint, statesmanship, diplomacy, care for the environment, and support for public schools and working families, and the inherent rights of all people to marry, present themselves as they wish, and be protected from discrimination. That’s only “liberal” in comparison to the Republicans.
What America actually has is one centrist party and one radically reactionary party flirting with fascism. Liberal and conservative aren’t very descriptive in the current moment.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:25 AM on April 3, 2018 [11 favorites]
I also think the left has been having a bit of an anti-Trump pile-on for a while now, because it sells
What does this mean? Who is buying?
Not everything is (or should be) reducible to a commercial transaction, even when it's something you don't like.
posted by rhizome at 8:54 AM on April 3, 2018
What does this mean? Who is buying?
Not everything is (or should be) reducible to a commercial transaction, even when it's something you don't like.
posted by rhizome at 8:54 AM on April 3, 2018
the only way to move policy leftward is to turn more people into self-professed and self-understood leftists.
The problem is - first, what does that even mean? Even the political, non-lifestyle things that are often tossed into a bundle of 'leftism' are not actually coherent ideologies. There's no reason, for example, that insurrectionary anarchists or Marxists should back gun control, and there are many leftists who believe that a social safety net actually serves to dilute the motivation of the working class to change the structure. If you mean liberalism, the borders are also pretty fuzzy. I'm not sure I could define a coherent liberal ideology, for example.
And oftentimes, lifestyle issues are inappropriately conflated into political issues. Like - while there is some evidence that rural versus urban living does alter your feelings on the nature of individualism vs collectivism, that doesn't mean that rural hobbies or beliefs or even religion should be sneered at by all good urban liberals. And you can't turn people towards your political views if you're shitting all over their lifestyle, because when you do, what you're saying is that in order for them to maintain their way of life, they have to oppose your political views.
Which is kind of the thing about teams and political teams. Are people looking up policy papers, or are they saying, "I don't know, I kind of like the look of that team, and they seem to do the things I do and enjoy the kind of life I enjoy or would like to enjoy. I trust them to make decisions for me"?
It's why I kept screaming futilely at people who were mocking Trump for his steaks and his tie and his hair comb-over, because those things are not the danger, and when you do that, you insult everyone in America with shitty steaks and tie and hair, and they feel defensive about a man there is no reason to ever feel defensive about. And like - Lord knows I cringe every time I see his shittily misspelled tweets, but there are millions of Americans that cannot fucking spell and don't bother to try, and when you say 'what a loon, he can't even fucking spell' they say 'do you not trust me to do governance either?'
posted by corb at 9:04 AM on April 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
The problem is - first, what does that even mean? Even the political, non-lifestyle things that are often tossed into a bundle of 'leftism' are not actually coherent ideologies. There's no reason, for example, that insurrectionary anarchists or Marxists should back gun control, and there are many leftists who believe that a social safety net actually serves to dilute the motivation of the working class to change the structure. If you mean liberalism, the borders are also pretty fuzzy. I'm not sure I could define a coherent liberal ideology, for example.
And oftentimes, lifestyle issues are inappropriately conflated into political issues. Like - while there is some evidence that rural versus urban living does alter your feelings on the nature of individualism vs collectivism, that doesn't mean that rural hobbies or beliefs or even religion should be sneered at by all good urban liberals. And you can't turn people towards your political views if you're shitting all over their lifestyle, because when you do, what you're saying is that in order for them to maintain their way of life, they have to oppose your political views.
Which is kind of the thing about teams and political teams. Are people looking up policy papers, or are they saying, "I don't know, I kind of like the look of that team, and they seem to do the things I do and enjoy the kind of life I enjoy or would like to enjoy. I trust them to make decisions for me"?
It's why I kept screaming futilely at people who were mocking Trump for his steaks and his tie and his hair comb-over, because those things are not the danger, and when you do that, you insult everyone in America with shitty steaks and tie and hair, and they feel defensive about a man there is no reason to ever feel defensive about. And like - Lord knows I cringe every time I see his shittily misspelled tweets, but there are millions of Americans that cannot fucking spell and don't bother to try, and when you say 'what a loon, he can't even fucking spell' they say 'do you not trust me to do governance either?'
posted by corb at 9:04 AM on April 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
The problem is - first, what does that even mean?
Well, if you rate this study, it almost doesn't matter what it means. It's an affiliation, an inchoate sense of belonging, more than it is a sheaf of policy positions.
That's not how you or I would approach things, I guess, nor is it how you or I would think something so important should ideally be handled. But it does seem to be the way people are. The identity comes first, and support for the "appropriate" policy array follows
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:09 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
Well, if you rate this study, it almost doesn't matter what it means. It's an affiliation, an inchoate sense of belonging, more than it is a sheaf of policy positions.
That's not how you or I would approach things, I guess, nor is it how you or I would think something so important should ideally be handled. But it does seem to be the way people are. The identity comes first, and support for the "appropriate" policy array follows
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:09 AM on April 3, 2018 [2 favorites]
Like, lookit — how many times have you heard a young woman whose entire life chances have been positively shaped by feminism specifically declaiming it? "I'm no feminist, but..."?
If you ask the same young woman, "Well, do you think women ought to be paid the same wage as men for the same job?", they'll say, "Sure." Do you think women ought to have unlimited access to reproductive and sexual healthcare? "Of course." And have autonomy over their bodies? "Of course." Do you think women ought to be allowed into combat arms MOSs? Some hemming and hawing, maybe, but "If she can do the job, then sure." So, you're a feminist, then? "Oh, no, I wouldn't call myself that."
I think we've even discussed this here. It drives me batshit, and it's because a generation-long PSYOP effort on the part of a densely-interwoven set of institutions successfully laid the stink of a humorless, man-hating, sex-hating straw-womon on an entire spectrum of belief and political commitment. Identity comes first. Identity is all. Everything else follows.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:17 AM on April 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
If you ask the same young woman, "Well, do you think women ought to be paid the same wage as men for the same job?", they'll say, "Sure." Do you think women ought to have unlimited access to reproductive and sexual healthcare? "Of course." And have autonomy over their bodies? "Of course." Do you think women ought to be allowed into combat arms MOSs? Some hemming and hawing, maybe, but "If she can do the job, then sure." So, you're a feminist, then? "Oh, no, I wouldn't call myself that."
I think we've even discussed this here. It drives me batshit, and it's because a generation-long PSYOP effort on the part of a densely-interwoven set of institutions successfully laid the stink of a humorless, man-hating, sex-hating straw-womon on an entire spectrum of belief and political commitment. Identity comes first. Identity is all. Everything else follows.
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:17 AM on April 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
(Never mind, I caught the fallacy in what I'm arguing here. I'm sorry to be so incoherent, and for squatting on the thread like this. I'm so very, very tired. Forgive me.)
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:20 AM on April 3, 2018
posted by adamgreenfield at 9:20 AM on April 3, 2018
You're fine, and you contribute great value to the threads and I'm always delighted to have your contributions. And when and if you find yourself being a part of those games, it's not a personal failing, it's because as you have noted yourself, the question of political identity is so pernicious, and the tribalism there strikes so deep.
But if we are going to move forward, we have to find a way to unmoor these political questions from identity questions. We have to find a way to let people from both identities agree from different directions. Even if it's hard - even if it takes longer to convince people. Because if we do, once we convince them they will stay convinced, and we won't have to keep fighting this constant rearguard action every time the identities shift politics.
posted by corb at 9:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
But if we are going to move forward, we have to find a way to unmoor these political questions from identity questions. We have to find a way to let people from both identities agree from different directions. Even if it's hard - even if it takes longer to convince people. Because if we do, once we convince them they will stay convinced, and we won't have to keep fighting this constant rearguard action every time the identities shift politics.
posted by corb at 9:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [4 favorites]
but there are millions of Americans that cannot fucking spell and don't bother to try, and when you say 'what a loon, he can't even fucking spell' they say 'do you not trust me to do governance either?'
No, I really don't. I'm not one to fetishize experience or credentials; in fact, I think liberals and progressives do that, to the detriment of fundamental values and principles.
But spelling is a basic task of life. It means you pay attention to details that matter. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be in charge of deciding which details can affect my life, often on a life-or-death basis. Governance is all about paying attention to details, often on the margins. It's not about making speeches or whatever you thought it was based on The West Wing.
posted by arkhangel at 9:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
No, I really don't. I'm not one to fetishize experience or credentials; in fact, I think liberals and progressives do that, to the detriment of fundamental values and principles.
But spelling is a basic task of life. It means you pay attention to details that matter. If you can't be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be in charge of deciding which details can affect my life, often on a life-or-death basis. Governance is all about paying attention to details, often on the margins. It's not about making speeches or whatever you thought it was based on The West Wing.
posted by arkhangel at 9:23 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
But spelling is a basic task of life. It means you pay attention to details that matter.
Yes. It also means that you can communicate effectively. Kind of important for everyday life, let alone being in charge of what happens to an entire nation, and by extension, the global community.
And before all the bullshit starts: nobody here is talking about excluding people who have dyslexia, or other legitimate difficulties, from running for office, so don't even start stuffing the straw into that strawman. We're talking about people who don't care that they've done something incorrectly, and can't be bothered to put forth the minimal amount of effort it would take to correct simple mistakes. Do you really want those people running things? I mean, you've *got* them, so yeah, I do care if THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can't spell. I think it's a legitimate concern, not just because of the larger problems that it points to, but entirely on its own. So yes. I think that if you are okay handwaving away the idea that proper spelling matters in the fucking White House, then you suck at being a good citizen.
posted by tzikeh at 9:50 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
Yes. It also means that you can communicate effectively. Kind of important for everyday life, let alone being in charge of what happens to an entire nation, and by extension, the global community.
And before all the bullshit starts: nobody here is talking about excluding people who have dyslexia, or other legitimate difficulties, from running for office, so don't even start stuffing the straw into that strawman. We're talking about people who don't care that they've done something incorrectly, and can't be bothered to put forth the minimal amount of effort it would take to correct simple mistakes. Do you really want those people running things? I mean, you've *got* them, so yeah, I do care if THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can't spell. I think it's a legitimate concern, not just because of the larger problems that it points to, but entirely on its own. So yes. I think that if you are okay handwaving away the idea that proper spelling matters in the fucking White House, then you suck at being a good citizen.
posted by tzikeh at 9:50 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
Are people looking up policy papers, or are they saying, "I don't know, I kind of like the look of that team, and they seem to do the things I do and enjoy the kind of life I enjoy or would like to enjoy. I trust them to make decisions for me"?
It's kind of how we make decisions though. When people buy products they don't always create a comparative rubric or look at the nutrition label. We try, but we can't do it with every single decision or else we would be saying "Catsup or Ketchup?" all day. We see it in a store and either we like the packaging, heard a friend talking about it, or it's something new. This is partly why Trump did so well as a campaigner. He's been trying to sell himself or his name in one form or another for decades.
I guess this is less a sports team comparison and more towards a marketing/sales based comparison.
posted by FJT at 9:56 AM on April 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's kind of how we make decisions though. When people buy products they don't always create a comparative rubric or look at the nutrition label. We try, but we can't do it with every single decision or else we would be saying "Catsup or Ketchup?" all day. We see it in a store and either we like the packaging, heard a friend talking about it, or it's something new. This is partly why Trump did so well as a campaigner. He's been trying to sell himself or his name in one form or another for decades.
I guess this is less a sports team comparison and more towards a marketing/sales based comparison.
posted by FJT at 9:56 AM on April 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think that if you are okay handwaving away the idea that proper spelling matters in the fucking White House, then you suck at being a good citizen
I am a person who cares a lot about proper spelling, and punctuation, and grammar. But it is worth noting that this is far from a universal understanding, and has never been a universal understanding. Some of the greatest rulers in history did not consistently spell even their own name correctly, because standardization of English did not come about for a very, very long time after the written language was created and widely used. Trump is not a bad leader because of his misspellings. He is a bad leader because he is a gaping maw of a monster of a man with little demonstrated humanity.
Some of the people who are the most focused on the details of spelling don't care about the details of other things - I know, because I'm one of them. I don't care about details of formal dress, or the placement of silverware, or a whole host of 'details that matter' that other people tsk-tsk over.
And some people who don't care a whit about spelling nonetheless can assemble an entire quilt from hand where it matters if something is 2/16th of an inch or 3/16th of an inch different.
Because it's not a matter of 'don't care about being wrong' or 'don't pay attention to details', so much as 'don't consider that the item in question matters', and I guarantee there are many people throughout America who give no fucks about a variety of things, because we are the most diverse nation on the earth.
posted by corb at 10:01 AM on April 3, 2018 [6 favorites]
I am a person who cares a lot about proper spelling, and punctuation, and grammar. But it is worth noting that this is far from a universal understanding, and has never been a universal understanding. Some of the greatest rulers in history did not consistently spell even their own name correctly, because standardization of English did not come about for a very, very long time after the written language was created and widely used. Trump is not a bad leader because of his misspellings. He is a bad leader because he is a gaping maw of a monster of a man with little demonstrated humanity.
Some of the people who are the most focused on the details of spelling don't care about the details of other things - I know, because I'm one of them. I don't care about details of formal dress, or the placement of silverware, or a whole host of 'details that matter' that other people tsk-tsk over.
And some people who don't care a whit about spelling nonetheless can assemble an entire quilt from hand where it matters if something is 2/16th of an inch or 3/16th of an inch different.
Because it's not a matter of 'don't care about being wrong' or 'don't pay attention to details', so much as 'don't consider that the item in question matters', and I guarantee there are many people throughout America who give no fucks about a variety of things, because we are the most diverse nation on the earth.
posted by corb at 10:01 AM on April 3, 2018 [6 favorites]
I used to be a pretty severe spelling and grammar grump, but as I've gotten older I've come to see that kind of thing as a kind of ableism. I can never say that someone "doesn't care" about spelling, I'm not in their head, so at any rate my affinity for spelling and grammar means I can figure out what they're trying to write anyway. So that's what I do.
This works extra good against other grammar bullies: "Dude, you know what they mean. You don't have to be a dick about it." Sure, I might be leaving room for even worse abuses of the written word, but I strive to keep up on things so that it doesn't outstrip my comprehension before I die.
Anyways, I hope this isn't too much of a derail. I do think it applies to anywhere that education or whatever meets a person with the expertise to criticize, including politics.
posted by rhizome at 10:22 AM on April 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
This works extra good against other grammar bullies: "Dude, you know what they mean. You don't have to be a dick about it." Sure, I might be leaving room for even worse abuses of the written word, but I strive to keep up on things so that it doesn't outstrip my comprehension before I die.
Anyways, I hope this isn't too much of a derail. I do think it applies to anywhere that education or whatever meets a person with the expertise to criticize, including politics.
posted by rhizome at 10:22 AM on April 3, 2018 [5 favorites]
Because it's not a matter of 'don't care about being wrong' or 'don't pay attention to details', so much as 'don't consider that the item in question matters', and I guarantee there are many people throughout America who give no fucks about a variety of things, because we are the most diverse nation on the earth.
Here's the thing, though: that you might give no fucks about Thing X doesn't mean that Thing X doesn't matter.
Take accessible entrances. I'm someone who can take the stairs at work, and often do, because it's good exercise. I don't particularly care about ramp entrances for wheelchairs or scooters. It is a detail about which, you might say, I give no fucks about on a day-to-day basis.
But if I'm elected or appointed to my city's zoning board, I need to care about it, because it's the law to make buildings ADA-compliant. And that's just one, obvious detail. There's dozens, if not hundreds more, and that's just one narrow matter of governance. If I'm on a school board, I need to care about property values, because that's how we fund school districts.
And on, and on, and on. Spelling is my proxy for seeing that you care about details that matter. Maybe it's quilting for other people, I don't know.
But it's my personal, lived experience as a former state government employee that when you get people in government that give no fucks about details, that inevitably means that lobbyists for specific interests -- who give all the fucks about all the details -- end up shaping the kind of government we have.
So, really, what you're saying is that you're perfectly okay with government by lobbyists. Those are your options. There ain't a third. Quit fronting like there is.
posted by arkhangel at 10:45 AM on April 3, 2018 [10 favorites]
Here's the thing, though: that you might give no fucks about Thing X doesn't mean that Thing X doesn't matter.
Take accessible entrances. I'm someone who can take the stairs at work, and often do, because it's good exercise. I don't particularly care about ramp entrances for wheelchairs or scooters. It is a detail about which, you might say, I give no fucks about on a day-to-day basis.
But if I'm elected or appointed to my city's zoning board, I need to care about it, because it's the law to make buildings ADA-compliant. And that's just one, obvious detail. There's dozens, if not hundreds more, and that's just one narrow matter of governance. If I'm on a school board, I need to care about property values, because that's how we fund school districts.
And on, and on, and on. Spelling is my proxy for seeing that you care about details that matter. Maybe it's quilting for other people, I don't know.
But it's my personal, lived experience as a former state government employee that when you get people in government that give no fucks about details, that inevitably means that lobbyists for specific interests -- who give all the fucks about all the details -- end up shaping the kind of government we have.
So, really, what you're saying is that you're perfectly okay with government by lobbyists. Those are your options. There ain't a third. Quit fronting like there is.
posted by arkhangel at 10:45 AM on April 3, 2018 [10 favorites]
There ain't a third. Quit fronting like there is.
Max Weber would like a word. Public bureaucracy evolved specifically to insulate the American public from both lobbyists and elected officials. When the government has become large enough to provide a number of critical services, public bureaucracy is critical to ensure some level of stability when we swing wildly between an Obama and Trump administration.
Elected officials can make policy decisions writ large, and bureaucrats get trusted with the details. Legislation typically has very little of the detail necessary for public policy to work.
Agency capture is a real thing. But that's less about lobbying and more around structural issues with finding qualified people with highly specific experience who are not in [X] industry. Which makes them susceptible to the same blinders as those in the corporate world.
To the extent that our bureaucracy is not protecting us now, that's mostly a product of generations looking on bureaucrats as part of the problem with Washington. Which again is part of the appeal that Trump mangles spelling and grammar. People in this thread might attribute it to being lazy or ignoring the apparatus that's expected to fix these issues before they go public. But it also shows level of immediacy and transparency that people have demanded from their government.
posted by politikitty at 11:20 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
Max Weber would like a word. Public bureaucracy evolved specifically to insulate the American public from both lobbyists and elected officials. When the government has become large enough to provide a number of critical services, public bureaucracy is critical to ensure some level of stability when we swing wildly between an Obama and Trump administration.
Elected officials can make policy decisions writ large, and bureaucrats get trusted with the details. Legislation typically has very little of the detail necessary for public policy to work.
Agency capture is a real thing. But that's less about lobbying and more around structural issues with finding qualified people with highly specific experience who are not in [X] industry. Which makes them susceptible to the same blinders as those in the corporate world.
To the extent that our bureaucracy is not protecting us now, that's mostly a product of generations looking on bureaucrats as part of the problem with Washington. Which again is part of the appeal that Trump mangles spelling and grammar. People in this thread might attribute it to being lazy or ignoring the apparatus that's expected to fix these issues before they go public. But it also shows level of immediacy and transparency that people have demanded from their government.
posted by politikitty at 11:20 AM on April 3, 2018 [7 favorites]
Some of the greatest rulers in history did not consistently spell even their own name correctly, because standardization of English did not come about for a very, very long time after the written language was created and widely used.
This is 100% true. ALSO 100% true is the fact that nowhere in my comments am I taking King John to task for not having double-checked all of the words in the Magna Carta for acceptable spelling alternatives before he signed it.
HOWEVER, standard English spelling as used in diplomatic and governmental documentation is pretty well fucking codified today.
Would you care to address the topic at hand?
posted by tzikeh at 11:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
This is 100% true. ALSO 100% true is the fact that nowhere in my comments am I taking King John to task for not having double-checked all of the words in the Magna Carta for acceptable spelling alternatives before he signed it.
HOWEVER, standard English spelling as used in diplomatic and governmental documentation is pretty well fucking codified today.
Would you care to address the topic at hand?
posted by tzikeh at 11:21 AM on April 3, 2018 [3 favorites]
The Economist article explains why President Trump will probably win his bid for a second term.
posted by Kwadeng at 10:47 PM on April 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Kwadeng at 10:47 PM on April 3, 2018 [1 favorite]
"The ANES also asks voters whether the Republicans or Democrats are more conservative, and found that some 15% of Trump voters thought the Democrats were the more conservative party (as did 6% of Clinton voters). Add in the don’t knows, and 16% of Clinton voters and 24% of Trump voters were not sure which party was more conservative."
So, certainly some of the folks that thought that the democrats were more conservative were misinformed on the issue. I would argue that not all of them were.
I certainly think the Democrats are more conservative.
The current Republican party (led by Trump) is a radical party, one that wants drastic change, to reshape who we are as a country. They are anything but conservative, by any measure. They certainly aren't fiscally conservative, by the traditional definition; they espouse fiscally conservative rhetoric, but their policies are anything but (and conversely the Democrats are fiscally conservative.
By any reasonable measure Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton were left leaning centrists; which essentially a conservative position (maintain the status quo with small incremental changes in line with their general political perspective).
The most radical position put forth by Democrats recently (ACA) was essentially architected by the other part (during Clinton's administration); very centrist position (the health care system was in such dire straits that action was absolutely needed).
Trump, by any accounts is a right wing radical that wants drastic change on a whole slew of issues (and is doing his best to get them).
Certainly some folks who answered that ANES survey 'wrong' were misinformed voters, but maybe others who answered it 'wrong' had a perspective similar to mine.
In my mind we have a radical right party, a conservative left-leaning party, and no 'viable' party for folks with my somewhat radical left political perspective.
posted by el io at 12:26 PM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
So, certainly some of the folks that thought that the democrats were more conservative were misinformed on the issue. I would argue that not all of them were.
I certainly think the Democrats are more conservative.
The current Republican party (led by Trump) is a radical party, one that wants drastic change, to reshape who we are as a country. They are anything but conservative, by any measure. They certainly aren't fiscally conservative, by the traditional definition; they espouse fiscally conservative rhetoric, but their policies are anything but (and conversely the Democrats are fiscally conservative.
By any reasonable measure Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton were left leaning centrists; which essentially a conservative position (maintain the status quo with small incremental changes in line with their general political perspective).
The most radical position put forth by Democrats recently (ACA) was essentially architected by the other part (during Clinton's administration); very centrist position (the health care system was in such dire straits that action was absolutely needed).
Trump, by any accounts is a right wing radical that wants drastic change on a whole slew of issues (and is doing his best to get them).
Certainly some folks who answered that ANES survey 'wrong' were misinformed voters, but maybe others who answered it 'wrong' had a perspective similar to mine.
In my mind we have a radical right party, a conservative left-leaning party, and no 'viable' party for folks with my somewhat radical left political perspective.
posted by el io at 12:26 PM on April 4, 2018 [3 favorites]
By any reasonable measure Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton were left leaning centrists [...]
Only by American standards. Compared to much of the rest of the world and they barely qualify as left.
I'm with you on believing the left is barely extant anymore. Used to be Democrats fought for jobs and unions, now neither party really does. The spotlight has been shining brightly on how shitty infrastructure and education currently is, but it's not like there was ever a golden age, or that it was somehow better under the last guy. Teachers have been paid shitty forever, and have been complaining about this for even longer. Unions have been in decline since they were first formed. Wages have been stagnant for 40 years. Democrat or Republican, to your average worker, it only matters whether or not you are employed.
Only exception I take to what you wrote is that I don't see either party as being fiscally conservative. Both love to spend.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:15 PM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
Only by American standards. Compared to much of the rest of the world and they barely qualify as left.
I'm with you on believing the left is barely extant anymore. Used to be Democrats fought for jobs and unions, now neither party really does. The spotlight has been shining brightly on how shitty infrastructure and education currently is, but it's not like there was ever a golden age, or that it was somehow better under the last guy. Teachers have been paid shitty forever, and have been complaining about this for even longer. Unions have been in decline since they were first formed. Wages have been stagnant for 40 years. Democrat or Republican, to your average worker, it only matters whether or not you are employed.
Only exception I take to what you wrote is that I don't see either party as being fiscally conservative. Both love to spend.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:15 PM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
"Only exception I take to what you wrote is that I don't see either party as being fiscally conservative. Both love to spend."
I was speaking in relative terms; when Democrat presidents are in power there seems to be a bigger effort to have a balanced budget. Perhaps this is due to Republicans spending on the military like it's not real money, but their rhetoric is super-far away from the legislation they pass when in office. Democrats tend to do much better, but don't talk about it, as it's 'off-brand' (maybe that's on the reason, but it probably isn't a talking points their tradition base would be attracted to).
posted by el io at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
I was speaking in relative terms; when Democrat presidents are in power there seems to be a bigger effort to have a balanced budget. Perhaps this is due to Republicans spending on the military like it's not real money, but their rhetoric is super-far away from the legislation they pass when in office. Democrats tend to do much better, but don't talk about it, as it's 'off-brand' (maybe that's on the reason, but it probably isn't a talking points their tradition base would be attracted to).
posted by el io at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2018 [1 favorite]
Would you still give a fuck about Trump's spelling if you agreed with his politics? If he was pushing brilliant, workable policies full of compassion and love and healing rather than incoherent, reactionary ones full of xenophobia and hate, would you give a shit about his grammar? If he were a paragon of virtue rather than a parody of venality, might you be inclined to give his average-bad writing skills a pass?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:13 PM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:13 PM on April 4, 2018 [2 favorites]
For a supposedly intelligent world leader? No. He's not a 14 year old girl texting her friend about a boy she likes.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 PM on April 12, 2018
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 PM on April 12, 2018
« Older They Feel Good | None of the authorities are here to help you. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"For example, it is hard to think of two more different candidates, in temperament, style and policy, than Mitt Romney and Donald Trump," Not sure if this is a true statement.
posted by The_Vegetables at 1:04 PM on April 2, 2018 [7 favorites]