Uninformed voters

Also from National Review, worth posting in it's entirety.

You may recall that a mere 72 hours after Saddam was captured alive, the president of the United States gave an exclusive interview to Diane Sawyer. Big news, big guest.

"Big deal" quoth much of America.

Paris Hilton was on another channel at the time. Hilton, while lacking the intellectual candlepower to toast bread, has certain other assets - she's rich; she's good-looking; she has a certain Internet-porn come-hither look around the eyes (and around everything else).

The George Bush interview was watched by 11 million people, mostly older. The Paris Hilton reality show, "The Simple Life," was watched by 11.8 million viewers, mostly younger. Perhaps more astonishing, "The Simple Life's" ratings were fairly typical for such drek. The Diane Sawyer interview with President Bush received the highest ratings of any presidential interview all year, including Tom Brokaw's plum interview after the end of the Iraq war.

Now you might think this might be a good reason for Howard Dean to pick Paris Hilton as his running, uh, mate. But that's not my point.

I bring it up for another reason: Americans have a tendency to think the problem with politics lies with their candidates and not themselves. The truth is Americans deserve the blame for the state of our politics and the state of our media. I know it's not savvy to criticize the customers, but perhaps especially at Christmastime, we should still have a few scrooges left.

First of all, if you only get your news from television, I can speak freely because that means you're probably not reading this. Second, you're an idiot.

OK, maybe not technically an idiot in the sense that you're only qualified to be an assistant spellchecker in an M&M factory. But, to the extent you take being an informed citizen seriously, you get a failing grade. Whether you are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if your only news source is the boob tube you are simply underinformed, though not necessarily misinformed.

Unfortunately, most Americans are underinformed. If current trends continue, only 1 in 4 households will buy newspapers by 2007, according to Peter Francese, the founder of American Demographics magazine. This is a trend with roots that predate the rise of the Internet, and, I'm afraid to say, the Internet will not solve the problem. If huge numbers of people believe they are too busy to read newspapers, there's no reason to believe they'll have enough spare time to sit at a computer.

The ignorance of the typical American when it comes to politics is often staggering. For example, just one week before the GOP convention in 2000, the Vanishing Voter Project conducted a survey revealing that three out of four Americans didn't know when the convention would be held. One in four Americans don't know who their governor is and one in two don't know who their congressman is.

This ignorance is the real reason special interest groups and demagogues have the success they do (though it's a wonder they don't have more). For example, we are constantly told by extreme leftwing groups and more than a few rightwing groups that there's no difference between the political parties.

As anyone who pays attention to politics knows, this is monumental nonsense on stilts; informed people understand that a Dean administration will be very different from a Bush administration.

But if you get much of your news from late-night comics - as is the case with nearly half of young voters, according to the Pew Research Center - it makes complete sense that you'd think there's no difference between the parties, in much the same way people who don't understand physics think protons and electrons are pretty much the same thing.

But Americans don't like being told they're the problem. So when they eventually tune into politics they tend to blame the candidates, as if it's the actors' fault you don't understand the play when you arrive for the last five minutes.

For example, during the last campaign, the news networks convened "undecided voters" to watch Gore-Bush debates. Invariably, these average Americans complained that the candidates didn't provide "enough information" to help them decide between the two candidates. That's right, it was the candidates' fault. They only put out position papers, speeches, commercials and Web sites for a year, while those poor undecideds watched Jay Leno.

Now, as a conservative I don't mind that Americans aren't consumed with political fervor. In fact, I tend to like low voter turnout on the principle that the people not voting are probably the people I don't think should vote.

My problem is with a political culture that tells everyone they're bad citizens if they don't vote but doesn't care if they don't know why they're voting. In other words, I don't really mind if you'd prefer to watch Paris Hilton over George W. Bush - or Howard Dean. That might even be healthy. But spare me your opinion on either of them and, if possible, spare me your vote, too.

Bah, humbug.

This is one of the reasons I participate in these discussions. Even if I don't agree with you, it is valuable to be exposed to your ideas...even if it is so I can refine my thinking on the rebuttal.

I am appalled at your hostility towards the military. To imply that uniformed voters shouldn''t have a say is horrific!

No rebuttal necessary. As a liberal, I agree with most of it, even the piece about voting.

Time after time, the media interviewed some hayseed that basically summed up their political philospohy as: Bush is a good man. Okay, personality is not policy, and it can''t even be considered a political doctrine, can it?

Democracy, especially a representative democracy, depends upon the debate and compromise of an informed citizenry.

I don''t see any major issue to shrinking the overall size of the pool of votes in favor of what could be called ""quality votes"", that is, votes that have a reasoned position behind them.

Even if it is different from my political opinion on that issue, I can respect that opinion. What I cannot repect is someone saying, well, I voted for the man, not the issues. Pluhease.

Do us all a favor: educate yourself, form a reasoned opinion, then vote. If not, stay home, and stop complaining.

Even if it is different from my political opinion on that issue, I can respect that opinion. What I cannot repect is someone saying, well, I voted for the man, not the issues.

I agree with that to a point. When a candidate only supports an issue for political expediency (say, General Clark''s positions as a Democrat), it is pretty important to take ""the man"" into consideration, as it is very likely that ""the man"" will screw over those who expect him to represent their views, once the wind changes.

Most people may not have a good grasp of issues, but understand that a good person in office will do the right thing by the most people, regardless of party.

I''m not sure that that holds water. You can have a good man that is a poor politician (Jimmy Carter), and a scoundrel that is a good politician (LBJ). Which had the greater impact on society? LBJ.

The fact is, even if the person is a ""good man"", it may not make them qualified to lead. Bush jr. is a prime example.

A child of privilege that has no business sense at all, who got to where he was essentially on his Father''s name and the efforts of his mentors, a former alcoholic who found the bible when it would get him elected, a yale grad that can barely string together a sentence.

That''s who should lead out country? That''s the best we can do?

That''s what we get when uniformed voters vote ""the man"".

"Mateo" wrote:

I''m not sure that that holds water. You can have a good man that is a poor politician (Jimmy Carter), and a scoundrel that is a good politician (LBJ). Which had the greater impact on society? LBJ.

Exactly. And the good man was a lame duck while the scoundrel killed tens of thousands of Americans so that he wouldn''t look bad personally. Thank you for proving my point.

"Mateo" wrote:

That''s who should lead out country? That''s the best we can do?

Yep, you get a guy who pushed through one of the biggest tax cuts in history, did the largest reorganization of government since Truman simply to protect American soil, won two wars, and put two countries into the debt of America and on the path to democracy in a region where nothing but anti-American tyrannies existed before. Not too shabby.

"Mateo" wrote:

a former alcoholic who found the bible when it would get him elected

Huh? GWB quit drinking in 1986 - what was he running for then, exactly? It''s ok that you hate the guy - although hardly original... But is it too much to ask you to get your facts straight?

Don''t forget about that monument to the police state the PATRIOT Act. Wouldn''t want to let you slide on that one. I blame Clinton for the DMCA, but this administration is solely responsible for PATRIOT.

I''m not too keen on the whole ""Department of Homeland Security"" thing, either. Yeah, yeah, I know, that makes me an unpatriotic paranoid conspiracy theorist, but so be it.

So what''re the CIA and the FBI for? How about the National Guard? And don''t tell me there isn''t an intelligence division of the military that was already doing the whole homeland security thing.

We didn''t need the department to be formed. It was a political maneuver to provide a false sense of security for the American public. Either that, or the first step towards being prepared to institute martial law if necessary.

And those two wars that ""Bush won""? No offense, but how could he not ""win"" them? Wait, there''s something in my throat... *COUGH*Clinton*COUGH* Yeah, so Clinton had the whole Mogadishu debacle, but we weren''t technically at war with that nation either, with 130,000 troops at hand and support from the Air Force.

But the only way that we could''ve lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is if we completely, royally, irrevocably bungled everything and stumbled in backwards, naked, and with targets painted on our troops. These were underdeveloped nations without modern militaries and easily disabled communications infrastructures.

I''ll credit Bush with the tax cut. I won''t hold 9/11 against him, since that would have happened regardless of who was President. (Though as this probe is may reveal, someone in the government, and possibly the administration, may have had some pretty damning evidence beforehand that the attack was going to happen)

I just don''t think that Bush has actually accomplished as much as some people like to make out.

DMCA and Copyright Extension Acts were pretty much unanimous in Congress. I blame both sides of it. Same thing for the PATRIOT Act.

But the only way that we could''ve lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is if we completely, royally, irrevocably bungled everything and stumbled in backwards, naked, and with targets painted on our troops.

In other words: Under UN command.

So what''re the CIA and the FBI for? How about the National Guard? And don''t tell me there isn''t an intelligence division of the military that was already doing the whole homeland security thing.

Neither the CIA nor the military can operate within the US for law enforcement, by law. The national guard is a state-by-state part-time military - not up for counter-terrorism nor law enforcement. However, I happen to agree that the Homeland Security department was largely unnecessary, should the FBI and INS truly live up to their charters.

But the only way that we could''ve lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is if we completely, royally, irrevocably bungled everything and stumbled in backwards, naked, and with targets painted on our troops. These were underdeveloped nations without modern militaries and easily disabled communications infrastructures.

As was Vietnam. We had a huge technological advantage then and bled troops for years. The same is true of Afghanistan, which in the 1980''s managed to kick out the Soviets, who held every advantage. And your mention of Mogadishu speaks for itself.

Neither of the wars we fought in the last two years were gimmes - just read the New York Times during either one if you want to see how many experts predicted quagmires. It goes deeper than that, as well. Had either war gone really badly, Bush would have taken the heat - so in victory he deserves the credit.

Also, the opposition was (still is) completely against the war in Iraq, and some of those who dislike Bush were against invading Afghanistan. You can talk about how easy the victories were, but that doesn''t change the fact that without Bush they might not have(Iraq surely wouldn''t have) happened at all. And like I said, two pro-US fledgling democracies in the Middle East is a hell of an accomplishment.

I just don''t think that Bush has actually accomplished as much as some people like to make out.

Just for comparison, what was Clinton''s biggest accomplishment?

""...won two wars, and put two countries into the debt of America and on the path to democracy in a region where nothing but anti-American tyrannies existed before. Not too shabby. ""

Okay, that''s counting your chickens. American soldiers are still dying in Afganistan and Iraq, with no end in sight for our presence in either region. How is that a ""W""?

Overall, tax cuts have only gone two the richest 5% of the population, another victory for trickle down economics. I don''t think the $300 that I got this year really helped all that much, other than to save me paying out of my existing cash for a credit card bill.

And that was essentailly reimbursing myself for funds that technically were appropriated from my existing income. Not that my paycheck has changed one bit from the tax rollbacks you tout.

So where is the benefit?

As for LBJ: JFK couldn''t get sh*t done during his term, in large part becasue of opposition to his ""universalist"" politics. It too some serious per & post assasination back room brawling to get things like desegregation, voting, and other progressive programs through. LBJ was the last of the old school politicians. If it weren''t for Vietnam, he''d have gone down as a hero.

As for bush jr., I''m old enough to remember him running for office in Texas, saying of his past indiscretions that ""He found jesus""-please. Don''t whitewash his credentials. That sort of sh*t gets you elected in Texas.

Just for comparison, what was Clinton''s biggest accomplishment?

That''s a moot point, since I didn''t like Clinton and wouldn''t really stand up for his administration, either.

"Mateo" wrote:

Okay, that''s counting your chickens. American soldiers are still dying in Afganistan and Iraq, with no end in sight for our presence in either region. How is that a ""W""?

I''m glad you weren''t around in Germany in 1948 to complain we hadn''t won there either... You are right that we aren''t leaving either country anytime soon (sh*t, we''re still in Germany, Japan, Kosovo, etc. today - I guess we didn''t win those either), but the removal of the Taliban and Saddam''s regime certainly makes these wars ""wins"". The only way we will let them become losses is if we let a few terrorists and vehicle accidents drive us home with our tails between our legs - in other words, only if Howard Dean wins the election next year.

Overall, tax cuts have only gone two the richest 5% of the population, another victory for trickle down economics. I don''t think the $300 that I got this year really helped all that much, other than to save me paying out of my existing cash for a credit card bill.

And that was essentailly reimbursing myself for funds that technically were appropriated from my existing income. Not that my paycheck has changed one bit from the tax rollbacks you tout.

The income tax rate cuts hit a lot more than the top 5% of taxpayers - but I''m not surprised you don''t know that sinec you don''t remember what year you got your refund...

The tax rates on all brackets but the bottom two (who combined pay about 8% of federal taxes) have been reduced, and will drop further in 2006. Even those in the bottom two brackets got a tax refund (two if they have children).

Further, the bottom two brackets benefited as Bush increased the amount taxed at 10% from $12,000 to $14,000 if you are married, $6,000 to $7,000 if you are single. That means that $1,000-$2,000 of your income that used to be taxed at 15% is instead taxed at 10%.

Bush also increased the Child Tax Credit amount, and implemented a graduated elimination of the marriage penalty, which is already reducing the tax burden on those married and will do so more and more each year. Both of these affect every taxpayer who is married or has children (or both).

Bush also implemented a reduction in capital gains and dividend taxes which potentially affects every single person who invests - which is largely what you have to thank for the currently roaring economy. Interestingly, the middle-class tax cuts, which took place in 2001 and included the refund checks (the one you apparently didn''t cash until this year) had little effect on reviving the economy. But the so-called ""tax cuts for the rich"" - meaning investors and small business owners - didn''t kick in until this year, which is when the largest economic growth has happened. Not a coincidence...

As for LBJ...If it weren''t for Vietnam, he''d have gone down as a hero.

That''s like saying, if it weren''t for all those lies, Clinton would have gone down as an honest president. LBJ didn''t give a sh*t about fighting Communism - he just didn''t want to be the first president to lose a war. But he was also too concerned about his political fortunes to take the actions needed to finish the job. He was an unprincipled egomaniac, who let tens of thousands of Americans die for his own personal reasons. Having a principled person in office would have made a huge difference.

As for bush jr., I''m old enough to remember him running for office in Texas, saying of his past indiscretions that ""He found jesus""-please. Don''t whitewash his credentials. That sort of sh*t gets you elected in Texas.

GWB quit drinking after he found religion - in 1986. That isn''t a whitewash, it''s a fact. So your assertion that he ""found the bible when it would get him elected"" is just plain wrong.

I think it''s interesting the conclusions people will leap to as to why no one gave two craps what Bush said to Diane Sawyer. Part of it is an interesting social critique, but there could also be any number of other reasons, not the least of which is that most people don''t believe a word that comes out of their leaders'' (plural and possessive meaning that I''m not strictly speaking of Bush here. There is a general sense of disillusionment in the age of mass market politics) mouth is either genuine or not constructed by committee ahead of time. To give that interview at the time it was given seemed a pretty obvious and opportunisitic - though, I admit possibly deserved - chance to shout ''I win!'' over and over again. And, it doesn''t seem that the people who failed to watch Bush were wrong, as nothing particularly salient seems to have come from the exclusive interview. It''s as predictable as watching an old favorite movie, you can almost say the lines right along with Bush as his rehearsed presentation is given.

Now, I can''t explain why anyone would want to watch Paris Hilton, when there was plenty of other good TV to watch. I think I actually was reading a book at the time ... which I''m pretty happy about because I didn''t know what the book was going to say next.

This is one of the reasons I participate in these discussions.
Even if I don''t agree with you, it is valuable to be exposed to your ideas...even if it is so I can refine my thinking on the rebuttal.

Ditto!

Robear

Can someone summarize the article for me please?

Can someone summarize the article for me please?

Good one!

You know, I just realized that 4 days before JMJ posted that no one cared about the interview, I in fact posted this topic talking about this very interview.

Pity more people didn''t watch it, or they would''ve watched as Bush evasively responded to questions regarding those infamous weapons of mass destruction.

Part of it is an interesting social critique, but there could also be any number of other reasons, not the least of which is that most people don''t believe a word that comes out of their leaders''

Actually, the general opinion of Bush is that he is well liked and honest - stated by well over 70% of the population going by polls. I think most people just didn''t know he was on, generally don''t care about politics, and realized that a Diane Sawyer interview isn''t a crisis announcement.

Actually, the general opinion of Bush is that he is well liked and honest - stated by well over 70% of the population going by polls.

I actually don''t contradict that. I just don''t think people believes they''re going to hear anything that wasn''t carefully fabricated and ultimately neutralized down to triviality. Further, if they didn''t know it was on, that can hardly be the fault of uninformed voters either.