« Truth Laid Bear Listings. | Main | Sample Sizes and Accuracy. »
November 08, 2004
Not Morons, Just Ignorant.
Bob Herbert manages to raise the tone of the Democratic critique of those who voted GWB:
A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.
This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.
Yes, I know, hard to believe that this is a step up but at least he is only calling them ignorant, not morons.
Actually, I think he's really on to something. Democratic Underground activists, perhaps Kos or Atrios instead, conducting teach-ins to explain to these pig-ignorant homophobes and evangelicals that their entire worldview is wrong and that their self-identification with ShrimpyMcBushChimp was all a delusion based upon their ignorance. I'd pay to see that, damn, I'd even launch the bid to buy the cable rights. Be a lot more fun than the Paris Hilton tapes and would probably contain more anal insertions (metaphorically if not literally).
Update: Welcome Instapundit readers. This eponymous blog is home to the thoughts and whims of a particularly dyspeptic Englishman who has avoided living in England for most of his adult life. Have a look round, please do, pull up a bollard and sit down. If there was one post (other than this one, of course) which I would want you to see it is this one. If you don't want to go there that's OK, although it's got a really good graphic by Jeff Goldstein.
Ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam.
November 8, 2004 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83421f59b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not Morons, Just Ignorant.:
» MORE MOONBAT MADNESS from Right Wingnuthouse
Tim Worstall has a link to a Bob Herbert piece on "the reality based community" teaching us right wing yankers about...well, reality. [Read More]
Tracked on Nov 8, 2004 9:24:44 PM
Comments
I do believe you have the wrong honorific for the President. Isn't it supposed to be SmirkyMcBushChimp not ShrimpyMcBushChimp? As for Bob Herbert, well, this seems to be a nice blog, so I won't sully it with his proper name.
Posted by: Fersboo | Nov 8, 2004 2:37:46 PM
FWIW I fisked the exact same article - http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20041108a
Share & Enjoy
Posted by: Dirty Dingus | Nov 8, 2004 2:44:06 PM
There's hope here. Herbert said one thing that perfectly describes what was wrong with the Democrats. It was in his closing line: "Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with."
Somebody ought to finally introduce these champions of Anita Hill to Juanita Broaddrick.
Posted by: ionstorm | Nov 8, 2004 3:22:29 PM
Typical lefty response: re-education efforts will produce a more compliant public. Anyone ever hear of the Cultural Revolution?
Posted by: rivlax | Nov 8, 2004 3:27:42 PM
Worstall and Fersboo, you are both wrong on Pres. Bush's honorific. In its most correct form, it is ShrimpChimp BushHitler. I hate to be a nitpicker, but accuracy is important.
Posted by: John Cunningham | Nov 8, 2004 3:50:03 PM
Had a look round, I did, pulled up a bollard and sat down. No wonder the Left is in such trouble. ShrimpyMcBushHitlerChimp passes for liberal discourse...as does anything profane, foolish, and self-indulgent.
Do have a good day, but remember: Leftism isn;t a valid political position. It's a mental disorder. Proof's in the (Yorkshire) pudding.
Posted by: 6Gun | Nov 8, 2004 4:22:10 PM
Teach-ins for conservative voters? What world do you live in? We are at work. With thinking like this, I have confidence that the Democratic PArty will receive a sound thrashing agin at midterms. Go for it.
Posted by: garrett | Nov 8, 2004 4:42:36 PM
As long as the left continues to think we were too ignorant to understand their message they will continue to lose elections. Just seem to occur to them we understood their message quite well and rejected it.
I am a Hispanic atheist with an IQ I'd match any of the "enlightened". I have a lesbian sister and gay brother-in-law--both of whom voted Bush.
If they truly think they were defeated by "ignorant red-neck homophobic morons" then they will never understand why this registered Democrat voted for Bush.
We aren't the ignorant ones that don't "get it"...
Posted by: faith+1 | Nov 8, 2004 4:43:50 PM
Please, please, please, educate me ole wise liberal sages (Are wise and sage redundant? I am too stupid to know.).
I am just a simple man. I have no education to speak of (Except for this Masters degree - can’t believe I actually thought that would do me any good in the "unrealistic" Red State world, what a putz I was!), and no world view in my life experience (Except for living in Europe for six years and traveling to Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Canada. Granted it was while I was in the military, but I heard the sites look the same as when you are a liberal youth discovering him or herself or a college professor on sabbatical, so I think I got the idea..
I am not acceptive of homosexuals with the possible exception of one of my best friends and the wonderful gay friends of my straight children. And I have NO tolerance for those who are not particularly religious (I mean I AM a backsliding Catholic living in big time Southern Baptist area so how could I be?).
I know I need guidance since I am uninformed. My Internet habit has not helped, nor have all these damn subscriptions to news and political magazines. My cable TV connection is no help either despite my having PBS, CNN, MSNBC, BBC America, and, dare I say it, Fox news on my favorite list on my remote.
I know I don't understand the plight of the poor, despite my parents being blue collar workers with little money and my having to work my way through college doing low end construction jobs. I know I don't understand what the military REALLY needs despite having served in the Air Force for 12 years, including during the 1991 Iraq War.
I know I don’t understand what REAL women want and need . . . despite my wife being a real woman (At least she seemed all woman to me last night, but that is more than you wanted to know I am sure.)
I am also incompetent and unable to perform the simplest of tasks, although I am upper middle class and don't live in a trailer so sometimes I fool people into thinking I know what I am doing.
In fact, I am sure there are other things I am woefully ignorant about, but I am simply too stupid to realize this (Although I think this sentence means I realize it after all - oh what a conundrum!).
Yes, I need your help, you see, because I voted for George W. Bush for President. And obviously that proves I am stupid, ignorant, racist, homophobic, and unenlightened.
Can you save me?
Posted by: David | Nov 8, 2004 4:50:09 PM
What David said. The last time I checked, "you are stupid," was not a serious, substantive argument. OR, am I just too stupid to see what a brilliant argument it is.....?
Posted by: Ben | Nov 8, 2004 4:58:41 PM
I look forward to Herbert's seminar. I'm inviting him to come to my workplace to re-educate us.
But he'd better make sure his health insurance is paid up first. The process would contribute far more to Herbert's education than anyone else's.
It's the arrogance, stupid.
Posted by: Tor McAuliffe | Nov 8, 2004 5:12:42 PM
Re-education camps for conservatives?
I thought Bush = Hitler.
Posted by: Roark | Nov 8, 2004 6:19:12 PM
I am a liberal, a Kerry voter, and a NYTimes reader and yet I was somewhat baffled by Herbert's op-ed. He might have focused on finding out why so many Americans voted for Bush despite all the unfavorable news coming out of Iraq and elsewhere, instead of concluding that conservatives simply weren't aware of it.
Posted by: luke | Nov 8, 2004 8:39:43 PM
luke,
I can say why I did. Because I had friends in Iraq and the news we were getting from the main media outlets--like the Times-- was so blatant in ignoring the good things going on in Iraq and only reporting the bad.
In several stories published by the mainstream I happened to be privy to the events because of family members who were there. Contrary to what was reported (a disaster) the truth was the operation was a success.
It got so bad I simply quit believing the networks and the major papers. It was so obvious they were blatant anti-Bush (as opposed to pro-Kerry) I no longer have any faith in them any longer.
Had I not known the truth behind the reports from family members I would have been led to vote for Kerry based on the lies of the media.
I know a lot of Bush voters who felt the same way.
Posted by: Faith+1 | Nov 8, 2004 9:55:23 PM
Did anybody read Herbert's column? What he pointed to was this: "A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion." Is it so wrong to point out ignorance where ignorance exists? And I assure you, a whole lotta ignorance exists.
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 8, 2004 11:42:43 PM
To follow up on that--I know there are a lot of very smart people who voted for Bush. However, as the study shows, the reality is that a large percentage of voters were misinformed(I'm sure Kerry voters were misinformed as well, though I suspect not to the same degree) or misled, and that is a danger to democracy. A study not long ago showed that on the media continuum, people who cite PBS/NPR as their primary source of information were the best informed while those who cited FoxNews were the worst informed. Which way do you think those two groups tend to vote? So when you go off on some silly sarcastic rant about how "I must be dumb cuz I voted for Bush, blah, blah, blah, but I have a master's degree and have traveled here and there" realize that if you're smart, or even informed, you are not the "ignorant" voter we are talking about. And I suspect nobody that regularly reads political blogs is. So don't take it personally, just continue to prey on the ignorant.
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 8, 2004 11:57:25 PM
Stay in Alberta Kevin. If you pass as 'informed' we don't need you down here. We've got plenty of crazy already.
Posted by: Fersboo | Nov 9, 2004 12:59:31 AM
That's the best you can come up with? How about arguing the points of my post rather than silly insults?
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 9, 2004 1:00:31 AM
I was asked in an e-mail to provide a link to the study I cited about people's misperceptions and how they correlate to primary sources of information. Here it is: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf It's in .pdf format. The study was conducted by The Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Key quotes: "Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions." And, "Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions." I invite everybody to have a look at the study for themselves.
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 9, 2004 1:29:11 AM
Personally, Kevin
I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in polls right now. The don't seem to be terribly, um, accurate.
Chads
Posted by: Chads | Nov 9, 2004 2:06:16 AM
Agreed. However, there is a difference between studies and polls.
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 9, 2004 2:20:19 AM
Kevin,
Your point and the point of Herbert are reasonable. I think what the "I gots me a degree" crowd is trying to say is, it's this EXACT pointing out of the stupidity of the populace that turns the populace against them. So, you come along, and point out someone else's pointing out the stupidity. Then you brandish a study to give credence to the stupidity claim.
I think one of the things the election results show is that people listen to the news, and put as much stock into its delivery as its content. Kerry chose Hollywood as his voice, and those were some of the most vocal about misrepresenting "middle America's" values. See Cher's comments, in particular.
So, the belief of Bush supporters were skewed. I'm sure you can get "out there" answers on a poll skewed against Dems. Bush ran a solid campaign. Kerry didn't. And as long as the MSM stands as the voice of the Dems, and continues to bash the intelligence of 51% of America, 51% of America will come out in 2008 and do the same thing.
Posted by: Nate | Nov 9, 2004 2:45:58 AM
Kevin, what about studies based on polls, as this one was? Here's some questions about the study. When the respondants were asked about "substantial" help given to al Qaeda by Saddam Hussein, was "substantial" quantified? Because to one person, substantial may mean financial backing, while to another, it may mean merely consorting with the enemy.
The study also cites "incorrect links between Iraq and al Qaeda", when it's been proven that, while not all links were substantiated, financial transactions were made, and training grounds in Iraq for al Qaeda existed.
What's your take on those points?
Posted by: Nate | Nov 9, 2004 2:51:14 AM
Yes, this study is about a poll, and not a terribly well-conducted one at that:
"48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions."
No "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda? How about the "friendly contacts," detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report? The final report said there were no "collaborative operational relationship" for "carrying out attacks against the United States," not that there were no "links."
WMDs weren't found in Iraq? How about the sarin shell used as an IED? Duelfer said "a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered . . ." They went on to say there were no "stockpiles," which is not quite the same thing.
The problem with the PIPA poll is that 2/3 of what it claims are "misperceptions" are at best arguable. An "old, abandoned chemical munition" is an "actual weapon of mass destruction" (to use the PIPA parlance), and if asked if Iraq had them just before the war, I'd have to say "yes."
Posted by: Cecil Turner | Nov 9, 2004 2:56:30 AM
Nate: First, there's no point debating Kerry's campaign. It was probably poorly done and the emphasis on Hollywood probably did more harm than good. I don't think I'll check Cher's comments because, as I imagine most of you would agree, what do I care what she thinks? A girlfriend made me sit through Moonstruck once, that was bad enough. The problem is that, as I think the study suggests, the right-wing wing of the media is misleading the public. Cher can lie (nobody should listen) but the media is not supposed to. And I know I'm going to get attacked by people saying that mainstream media leans left but, in my opinion, they don't deliberately mislead to the same extent--show me some evidence that those dependent on the "left-wing media" are equally misled and I'll reconsider. As to how this relates to further elections, I don't know. The truth needs to get out there and if it doesn't, it doesn't bode well for the Democrats. It also doesn't bode well for democracy in America, a system that depends on a well-informed population.
Cecil and Nate: The Report of Findings, as opposed to the summary that I linked to before, should answer all the questions you have about how it was conducted: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf
Posted by: Kevin Gourlay | Nov 9, 2004 3:48:29 AM
