1. Our voters are pretty smart.
You hear this one from politicians all the time, even John McCain, who promises straight talk, and Barack Obama, who claims that he's not a politician (by which he means that he'll tell people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear). But by every measure social scientists have devised, voters are spectacularly uninformed. They don't follow politics, and they don't know how their government works. According to an August 2006 Zogby poll, only two in five Americans know that we have three branches of government and can name them. A 2006 National Geographic poll showed that six in 10 young people (ages 18 to 24) could not find Iraq on the map. The political scientists Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, surveying a wide variety of polls measuring knowledge of history, report that fewer than half of all Americans know who Karl Marx was or which war the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in. Worse, they found that just 49 percent of Americans know that the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in a war is their own.
2. Bill O'Reilly's viewers are dumber than Jon Stewart's.
Liberals wish. Democrats like to think that voters who sympathize with their views are smarter than those who vote Republican. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the right-wing, blustery “The O'Reilly Factor” and the left-wing, snarky “The Daily Show” is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows' politicized viewers scoring in the “high knowledge” category.
So what about conservative talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh's audience? Surely the ditto-heads are dumb, right? Actually, according to a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Rush's listeners are better educated and “more knowledgeable about politics and social issues” than the average voter.
3. If you just give Americans the facts, they'll be able to draw the right conclusions.
Unfortunately, no. Many social scientists have long tried to downplay the ignorance of voters, arguing that the mental “short cuts” voters use to make up for their lack of information work pretty well. But the evidence from the past few years proves that a majority can easily be bamboozled.
Just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, after months of unsubtle hinting from Bush administration officials, some 60 percent of Americans had come to believe that Iraq was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, despite the absence of evidence for the claim, according to a series of surveys taken by the PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll. A year later, after the bipartisan, independent 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam Hussein had had nothing to do with al-Qaida's assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, 50 percent of Americans still insisted that he did. In other words, the public was bluntly given the data by a group of officials generally believed to be credible - and it still didn't absorb the most basic facts about the most important event of their time.
4. Voters today are smarter than they used to be.
Actually, by most measures, voters today possess the same level of political knowledge as their parents and grandparents, and in some categories, they score lower. In the 1950s, only 10 percent of voters were incapable of citing any ways in which the two major parties differed, according to Thomas Patterson of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, who leads the Pew-backed Vanishing Voter Project. By the 1970s, that number had jumped to nearly 30 percent.
Here's what makes these numbers deplorable - and, in fact, almost incomprehensible: Education levels are far higher today than they were half a century ago, when social scientists first began surveying voter knowledge about politics. (In 1940, six in 10 Americans hadn't made it past the eighth grade.) The moral of this story: Schooling alone doesn't translate into better educated voters.
5. Young voters are paying a lot of attention to the news.
Again, no. Despite all the hoopla about young voters - the great hope of the future! - only one news story in 2001 drew the attention of a majority of them: 9/11. Some 60 percent of young voters told Pew researchers that they were following news about the attack closely. (Er - 40 percent weren't?) But none of the other stories that year seemed particularly interesting to them. Only 32 percent said that they followed the news about the anthrax attacks or the economy, then in recession. The capture of Kabul from the Taliban? Just 20 percent.
Six years later, Pew again measured public knowledge of current events and found that the young (ages 18 to 29) “know the least.” A majority of young respondents scored in the “low knowledge” category - the only demographic group to do so.
And some other statistics are even more alarming. How many young people read newspapers? Just 20 percent. (Worse, studies consistently show that people who do not pick up the newspaper-reading habit in their 20s rarely do so later.) But surely today's youth are getting their news from the Internet? Sorry. Only 11 percent of the young report that they regularly surf the Internet for news. Maybe Obama shouldn't be relying on savvy young voters after all.
RICK SHENKMAN, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, IS THE AUTHOR OF “JUST HOW STUPID ARE WE? FACING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AMERICAN VOTER.”


Comments: 30
I think the low level of American knowledge comes mostly from the corporate media and how they tie everything up and make our elections into soap operas.
Young people just starting out making their families and homes do not have time to watch the constand "he said this and she said that. People need to know the real issues and what a candidate will do or not do about them.
Thomas Jefferson consider what to be the 4th branch?
Good article Jack
Although religion is frowned on being mixed with politics we can never get the public to see the harm it does to their own well being and we have con men like Limbaugh that is constantly preying on the fears of the people and spreading political hypocrisy.
When you talk about Limbaugh you are talking about the purest form of hypocrite we can have which was proven by his telling people to turn their own children in for experimenting with drugs while he himself was and probably still is an illegal drug purchaser for his own use.
and they don't see it.
For many Americans, the only thing that matters is the effort to corrupt (more than it already has been) our government with a religious agenda. For millions of voters of openly practice Dominionism and millions more who think they are just being good little Christians ...that's it. Period.
Anyone that would try and mix religion with politics is nothing but a hypocrite and does not belong in a free society.
Is this what Jefferson said? Is the 4th Estate different from the 4th Branch?
Sources?
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson
If the letter which contains the above quote can be referenced it would invclude the full quote.
Of course if you want to actually solve this problem please read Invisible Hand. Your alternative is to continue to suffer in ingorance.
Check out this website: http://www.campwood.com/FourthEstate.htm
Thomas Carlyle attributed the term to Edmund Burke in Carlyle's book "Heros and Hero Worship in History" (1841).
Tolerance? I call it freedom of choice by majority rule just like my constitution which defines my government. Bush does not define my government and neither does his master Cheney or any wing nut that waves their Chinese made flag so more of our innocent youth can be murdered for Bush profit in blood for oil wars.