Pew Research: ‘Republicans Know More’

1. Willynilly, over on another thread, is hereby proven right: Prof. Bauerlein has a pronounced tendency to a) ferret out “studies” that “prove” what he already believes and say, “See!” and b) to reach or reaffirm giant conclusions based on tiny amounts of data.2. Prof. Bauerlein may trying to be ironic in his quotation headline, “Republicans Know More,” but the difference between tongue-in-cheek and foot-in-mouth is, in his case, razor thin, if–given his general humorlessness–it exists at all.3. Republicans “know more,” have higher levels of education, make more, drive newer cars, and have lower golf handicaps than Democrats. Republicans also include in their ranks more of, er, “our kind of people” than do Democrats.4. Note, in passing, the differences in the Republicans’ and Democrats scores on the apparently unweighted questions. Republicans waaaay outscore the Democrats in knowing who Glenn Beck is; Democrats pull even and outscore Republicans on those trivial questions about the public option in health care and how much America spends on health care compared to European countries..5. Willynilly is absolutely right about…oh, sorry, said that already.

First, there’s nothing particularly “personal” in comment #2. (1) contains nothing “personal,” (3) contains nothing “personal,” (4) contains nothing “personal,” and (5) contains nothing “personal.” (2) says that Prof. Bauerlein has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth, and that he’s generally humorless–both judgments based on his posts, on the “texts,” if you will. While one might disagree with them and think that Prof. Bauerlein does not put his foot in his mouth (i.e., does not contradict himself or make illogical or unreasonable statements) or is not humorless in his writing, the statements are not “personal.” I don’t question Prof. Bauerlein’s honesty, integrity, sobriety, intelligence (yes, even smart people–and Prof. Bauerlein seems a very smart person–put their feet in their mouths when political passion outstrips intellectual prudence), patriotism, hygiene, etc., etc. And I do think that a disinterested perusal of Prof. Bauerlein’s posts will reveal a rather conspicuous lack of humor. That’s a demonstrable judgment derived straight from the texts, and isn’t “personal.”Second, do I think it’s okay to do what I’ve described above–which does not include “personal remarks” but does indeed include general indictments based on the texts of his posts and relevant to the thread(s)? Yep, perfectly okay. If Prof. Bauerlein wishes to express blanket disapproval of commenters’ pseudonyms, he must, of course, include disapproval of pseudononymous comments that agree with or praises what he says. It’s the convention of most blogs–and the rules of the road on “Brainstorm”–that the paid posters are identified by their real names and the unpaid commenters are permitted pseudonyms. Finally, as to Prof. Bauerlein’s “tendency” (not “disposition”) to “reach or reaffirm” (not “push”) “giant conclusions from tiny amounts of data,” I refer only to his blog posts. I’ve read several of Prof. Bauerlein’s articles in the mainstream media (but not in scholarly journals), and have not felt the need to write a critical letter to the editor. I haven’t read his books, either. Since he and his publisher saw fit to try to attract readers to his latest by giving it the tabloid title (yes, another reasonable judgment) of “The Dumbest Generation,” I’ve seen fit to avoid it on the same basis. (And those who might argue back that one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, should consider not putting tackily titled covers on their books.)There, that about does it.

Does Mr. Bauerlein actually draw any conclusions? It seems to me that he is just pointing out something that he feels might surprise some people. It was PEW, after all, that conducted the survey. It amazes me that so many of you think that a simple blog post is a dissertation to be defended. Sheesh!As for goxewu’s statement that Democrats “pull even and outscore” Republicans on non-trivial knowledge questions, did he/she forget about the double-digit leads that Republicans posted when it came to cap and trade, Sotomayor, the unemployment rate, and the House majority? Sorry, those must not be important.

I don’t find it at all surprising that Republicans are better informed.

Actually, what has gone uncommented upon here is that the Independents outscore the Democrats (9/12 vs. 3/12) and the Republicans only outscore the Independents by 1 (6/12 vs. 5/12) of which one is the only tied score.So, just who is it who knows more?

Random things:1) Prof. Bauerlein puts the title of his post in scare quotes, and his own commentary is pretty sparse. For those who are accusing him of making big generalizations based on crappy data: I don’t see him making much in the way of a claim at all. This post says to me ‘I’m sharing some information which you can digest for yourself’ much more than ‘I think based on this data Republicans know more than Democrats.’ Nothing wrong with calling attention to this poll, however little it tells us about the knowledge base of Republicans versus Democrats.2) Which reminds me: the issue items in this poll are all hot-button issues for the right moreso than the left. It wouldn’t surprise me if Republicans are paying more attention to how much they can’t stand cap-and-trade, how much they hate Sotomayor for her ‘wise latina’ comments, how much they fear a public option, and obviously how much they watch and listen to Glenn Beck. 3) Related to above: unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party includes large populations from the working and urban poor demographics; people who might not have the education or the money (or the time to watch primetime cable news) to be continually bombarded with these issues.4) Related to above: these facts in the poll aren’t necessarily the most important things to know about the issues to which they pertain. Arguably many of them are trivial. I agree with Prof. Bauerlein (as he states in many of his posts) that a strong democracy should have citizens with a strong knowledge base, a sense of history, cultural capital, etc.; but it seems to me the facts tested in this poll are more tabloid than anything else.

Having lost the executive office and both houses, Republicans begin to lay the groundwork for a “knowledge test” voting requirement. To pass this test, you must watch Fox news.

I’d be interested to see some of the answers given to the open-ended question, “Glen Beck is a…”

Know who Glen Beck is? Well that is hardly a measure of knowledge. What is the margin of error? What is the sample size? Are the demographics representative of the population. This is idiotic. Shame on you Chronicle for printing such foolishness…

The real question here IS NOT “What Does The Public Know?” The real question is What Does Mark Bauerlein Know? Answer: Nothing. Now, lets rephraise; What does Mark Bauerlein Know about Main Stream America? Answer: Less than Nothing. Mr. Bauerlein has clearly identified himself as one of hundreds of these sleazy right wing ultra conservative nut ball facts and information twisters. Just play some Chubby Checkers music and we can all watch Mr. Bauerlein do his twist of useless right wing data into moves that are supposed to intoxicate the minds of main stream Americans. Once intoxicated, Bauerlein and his chronies believe those so afflicted will follow him into the mind numming clutches of the right wing gospel. Please, Chronicle, we have had enough of this nonsense on talk radio and the TV screen – especially on Fox Cable News, to which Mr. Bauerlein pledges lifelong devoted “Love”. The Chronicle should not be a vehicle for this right wing BS. I am surprised that the management of The Chronicle would risk the loss of subatantial subscriptions over the likes one Mark Bauerlein. Put an end to it NOW.

goxewu (a he, FYI) did not say that the comments about cap and trade, Sotomayor, unemployment, or the House majority were trivial or not important. kffdn might want to read #2 (4) again.As to Prof. Bauerlein’s “just pointing out something he feels might surprise some people,” try this:In 1992, when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense, the DOD paid Brown & Root (a Halliburton company) $9 million to produce a report (classified) about the feasibility of private companies such as B&R could provide logistical support to the U.S. military in places where war might break out. Afterward, Cheney became chairman of Halliburton. Now I’m not drawing any conclusions about Mr. Cheney, mind you. I’m just pointing out something that I feel might surprise some people. (Right.)But, on the other hand, regarding willynilly’s latest comment:This sort of hyperventilating accusation does no good. Somebody on the right could submit the same post, with the particulars (Marc Bousquet for Mark Bauerlein, “sleazy left wing ultraliberal nut ball facts and information twisters” for the phrase containing “sleazy right wing…,” MSNBC for Fox Cable News, etc.) to just about the same null effect. willynilly was on his or her game when he or she nailed Prof. Bauerlein on the show-me-where-I’m-in-error dodge. But playing a Rush Limbaugh of the left doesn’t accomplish anything.

Just got an e-mail from the Chronicle editors: Comment boxes will not accept a paste. Everything must be typed directly into them. Sorry. My dumb.

Almost all of the questions pertain to matters that are Republican-centric. What about a question of U.S. incarceration rates, or homelessness, or juvenile poverty.

“Knowing moreor knowing less,does not meanyou know what’s best.”Cute poem. Bad message: stupid people should run the country.Oh, and what current issue is “Republican-centric,” gjetri? Are you saying Democrats only look at issues that directly affect themselves and don’t care about anyone else?

livefree: “This would seem to confirm the study, but more importantly makes the point that the “large populations” of those likely to vote for a Democrat are uneducated and/or ignorant of current events. The quintessentially perfect Democrat voter! One wonders how they would vote if they were educated and able to comprehend the prison of government dependence that their votes risk bringing down on all of us. . . On the other hand, simply having an education doesn’t guarantee common sense or the ability to think critically, so perhaps they would continue to vote Democrat after all.”So glad someone pounced on this. I was thinking about explaining around it pre-emptively, but decided not to in hopes that someone would respond precisely as you did.The fact is, the urban poor who vote Democrat are less educated and less likely to follow the humdrum flow of tabloid news. They’re less likely to be exposed to the baseless rantings of talking heads and highly-paid angry white men who make a living as political hacks. But these people (uneducated urban poor) have lots of practical, real-life experience with systems that many aloof, educated, privileged Americans like to spend their time discussing, as though they can truly feel the stakes of their discussions. For example, while people born into families with pregnant-teen older sisters are working full-time, minimum-wage jobs at 16 to contribute while older sister is on welfare, well-educated, informed Republicans are conducting thought experiments about ‘government handouts’ as non-motivational factors. They’re reading Ayn Rand, who claims to have never received support from anyone in her life after moving to the US and being fully supported by friends and relatives until her first plays and novels started bringing in an income, and considering whether these uneducated, unfortunate people ought to be making more of themselves according to a set of abstract and illogical philosophies. What exactly does it mean to be informed when ‘being informed’ in the sense of this study only means knowing about a handful of trivial facts pertaining to issues that only come up on the radars of people who have the privilege of thinking about them.And let’s be clear: the concerns of the elite are well separated from those of the plebes in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Limosine liberals are less concerned with the welfare of the poor than appearing to be concerned about such things. And the rich backroom administrators of the right aren’t worried about their Appalachian loyalists who have statistically poor health, poor education, and are…well…poor, whom they know are voting against their best interests every time they religiously elect a Republican. This business of ignorant voters electing themselves into a ‘prison of government dependence’ is easily and demonstrably flipped: values voters continually elect legislators whos fiscal ideologies directly contradict their demographics’ fiscal needs.In the end, between parties, what it comes down to is that Democrats recognize the realities of global economies and geopolitical ties, and no longer see national governments as the primary things to fear. Republicans are mired in the most utopian of utopian thinking: the nation is the idol, the national government the threat, and the individual the key to a utopian liberty.

Sarah Palin

Hey suomynona. . .you can’t be serious, right? You’re just “punking” everyone. . .you must be. I mean, let me get this straight. You contend that having a pregnant older sister and working at a minimum wage job at 16, is somehow superior in preparing one to understand economic, legal, and philosophical arguments than actually going to school and paying attention to the news? You consider knowing about the USSC, the War in Afghanistan, various legislative and administration leaders, and other current events related issues that may play a major role in everyone’s life to be “a handful of trivial facts?” Too funny! What a hoot! And I really like the line about “elect legislators whose fiscal ideologies directly contradict their demographics fiscal needs.” (I’m assuming you meant to say constituents instead of demographics.) If I was saying that, it would mean that the government is confiscating far too much of people’s wealth at the point of a gun and then squandering it. I thought Bush was insane with his medicare medicine for all program, but this crowd makes Bush look like a piker. $1.4 Trillion in debt (as a minimum)every year as fas as the eye can see! Bankrupting our children and our children’s children probably forever. But you are saying it, not me. And that means you probably think they should be taking even more from those who are productive and giving it to the unproductive because they have “fiscal needs.” This, I might add, is not funny. . . Barry and Harry and Nancy are in the process of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Soon, there won’t be anything left for anyone’s “fiscal needs.” You’re right about one thing, though. . .even if you are mocking it. The founding fathers did create a utopia – one based on individual liberty. They would all be aghast to see what is happening to it. . . You “one-world” types don’t recognize the realities of anything. The history of the world is one of tyranny and enslavement, something that continues in most of the world even today. But then, if all you have is “lots of practical, real-life experience” as a minimum wage, uneducated, member of the proletariat, you probably wouldn’t know any of that, would you?

goxewu would really do better to leave her disdain for my discipline to some issue where such disdain might actually cut to the point at issue. As it is, goxewu’s remarks are bigoted and ad hominem.That said, her facts are also wrong on the issue in question. Women’s suffrage was a Republican cause. Democrats worked hard against it, just as they worked hard to preserve segregation as long as they possibly could, with Democratic segregationists actually giving Carter (who, at one point, had run as a segregationist) a run for his money in the election that put him into office as President. Women’s suffrage and desegregation were based upon consistency with the founding principles of our representative democracy, that “all men (i.e. human beings) are created equal . . . .” While it is true that in the face of concerted congressional resistance by the democrats, desegregation finally moved to judicial review on the basis of the Republican-supported fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, women’s suffrage was fought out and won in the political arena. As it turns out, Republican men in both the Federal Congress and the state legislatures, acknowledged the justice in the petition by women that they be permitted to vote. This is what got them the vote. Republicans voted that they get it, while Democrats opposed it as hard they could.These are just the facts of the cases, and my knowledge of them has nothing to do with theology being superstition in disguise. These aren’t theological issues; but they are facts, and if we can’t be honest about them in the dialogue, then maybe we are biased after all.

1. new_theologian wouldn’t have to suffer disdainful remarks about his/her profession if he or she wouldn’t include irrelevant sideways swipes (#25, paragraph 4)at something, way back and elsewhere, that goxewu said about theology. As is oft said on “Law and Order,” “Sorry, your client opened the door, counselor.”2. All the expended gas on who is “better prepared to govern,” and all the dissing of minimum-wage workers obviously has to do, down deep, with suffrage. Neither suomynona nor I are suggesting that a high-school dropout supermarket sacker would make a better Congressperson than somebody with an advanced degree (even a law degree), and livefreeordie2 knows that. The thrust of the argument is about participation, and participation where it’s counted is at the voting booth. So livefreeordie2′s protest that nowhere did he or she “suggest” narrowing suffrage is disingenuous.3. I’m admittedly not enough of a grammarian to make sense of “…I would insist on lowering the standard to a high school diploma so that you could spend your evenings working towards being able to participate as well.”4. I’m glad that livefreeordie2 felt compelled to inform us that he or she indeed possesses a graduate degree. Frankly, I couldn’t readily tell that from his or her comments.

livefree:’You contend that having a pregnant older sister and working at a minimum wage job at 16, is somehow superior in preparing one to understand economic, legal, and philosophical arguments than actually going to school and paying attention to the news?’I think quite obviously not. If you read what I wrote above, you would know that my contention is that there are always disconnects between the people tinkering and philosophizing about policy initiatives and political systems and thos who are actually experiencing those systems on the ground, day to day. The point in my statement about the uneducated, urban poor is that we shouldn’t discredit the knowledge and experiences of these people simply because they don’t have degrees and don’t stay abreast of what is essentially tabloid (cable) news, news ‘events’ drummed up with a heavy peppering of bullshit and made into major public policy concerns. And of course, when I was writing above about the illogical nature of poor ‘values voters’ electing Republicans against their own fiscal interests, I’m talking about people who are woefuly un- or under-insured; small-business owners struggling in rural towns with the building of new Wal Marts against which they cannot compete; people on welfare and food stamps, etc., who elect politicians based on certain (often contrived) principles despite the fact that the politicians they elect are committed to cutting off the government services and regulations that literally sustain these people in their daily lives. I’m talking about people, in other words, who don’t even pay taxes because they don’t make enough money to qualify. You’d have to work pretty damn hard to manipulate a scenario in which people are paying no taxes into an argument that the government is violating these peole by overtaxing them. I’m confident this broader point of mine will be proven when a number of southern states, for example, with some of the nation’s worst healthcare problems, opt out of the public option in years to come, largely with the electoral consent of many of its under-insured constituents (and yes, I meant ‘demographics’ above; but I confess the ‘their’ was ambiguous as to whom it referred in that bad sentence of mine). I won’t comment any further than this on your issues with the subjunctive mood, just because I’m not snooty.But I’m very glad we can agree that the notion of individual liberty as a history-ending solution is indeed utopian. I said that from the beginning, didn’t I?

“…sleazy right wing ultra conservative nut ball facts and information twisters. Just play some Chubby Checkers music and we can all watch Mr. Bauerlein do his twist of useless right wing data into moves that are supposed to intoxicate the minds of main stream Americans.” As Crocodile Dundee might say, “Now THAT’S hyperventilating.”Point being? That while Willynilly might be correct (which he or she is) in labeling Prof. Bauerlein’s post elsewhere as being poorly researched, misguided, etc., rhetoric such as that quoted from Willynilly’s comment doesn’t advance our argument much. It’s just name-calling in the vein of Rush Limbaugh, to whom many of us on the reasonable left object as much for his rhetoric as for his positions.Sub-point being? That my comments don’t indulge in that sort of rhetoric. There’s not a scintilla of that sort of hyperventilating in this comment or any of my previous ones. Calm, cool, collected: c’est moi.But I’m a big-tent center-leftist and still welcome the likes of Willynilly (in spite of his or her rhetoric) and new_theologian (in spite of the sideswipes) into the fold. And now, back to dismantling Prof. Bauerlein’s post. Peace.

The demographic differences between the two parties cited in post #29 explain the partisan differences, as they also seem to explain the surprising poll result I mentioned in post #15. So the only thing for which we should fault Bauerlein in this instance is having framed the poll results in a way that led to this predictable little flame war. He could have headlined his piece, with equal accuracy, “Men know more.”BTW: Do I really have to know anything about Glenn Beck to be a good, well-informed citizen? Excuse me, but I don’t think so.

First, shame on the many of you who used this forum as a springboard for advocating their own politics. Knowing who Glenn Beck IS relevant since knowing who he is improves your chances of watching the news in the first place. Just because you don’t like him or Fox News does not make the question any less relevant for capturing this data.The findings that Republicans are better informed (I wouldn’t say “know more”) than Democrats is not really hard to fathom. Democrats generally (please remember that I said “generally”) tend to attract younger, lower income and lower educated voters. Neither of these three demographics shine when it somes to knowing current events.The one bright star from the survey that everyone has seemed to miss and that both political parties should note is how Independents seem to be on par and even beat Republicans in this survey. The smartest and most responsible citizens think as Independents and do not have a blind allegiance to either political party, like many of the people on this forum have made all too obvious.

Re # 471) You said “The particular example of Glenn Beck skews the survey, because he’s politically partisan on the right. Liberals are less likely to know, or more likely to have quickly forgotten, who Mr. Beck is. If the example had been, say, Amy Goodman–partisan on the left, but serious and at least not a hawker of thriller novels on her show–the results would have been skewed the other way. As it was, the survey in effect asked baeball fans who some Cubs relief pitcher was, and then concluded from the results that people in Chicago know more about baseball than those in Los Angeles.” So by this reasoning, you would argue that less Democrats should know who George W. Bush is because he’s politically partisan on the right? This is rubbish. People know who Mr. Bush is because they watch the news and stay current with events. Intelligent people still get their news from comprehensive sources and form their own conclusions and like to stay current no matter what channel with which they usually agree. And help me understand this – liberals love to celebrate diversity because we have so much to learn from others, so why does this not apply to those who do not share our political viewpoints? 2) I agree with many of your sentiments about Independents and their inaction, and I can only give you my take on my choice. In this increasingly polarized America (where people refuse to watch one news channel or another because they already know they don’t agree with some viewpoints, for example), there is an opportunity for either a candidate in one of the two main parties or a brand new party to represent what I feel is an increasingly disenfranchised middle of the political spectrum. I am in touch with many conservatives who distance themselves from the spending of President George W. Bush and his decision for war in Iraq and liberals who are worried that their Democratic leadership does not take national security seriously. I read sometime after the election that the number of people declaring themselves as Independent is growing (apologies for not having that data available), so in order to be successful on Election Day both parties will need to increasingly look at issues individually and align themselves with the majority of Americans before a third party (or parties) scoop those votes. As for me, I do not need “just the right candidate.” I will be happy with an “A;” I do not need a “100.”3) You said “If independents think that the two major parties are just Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee–a conclusion hard to justify given the most recent Presidential campaign and election” I am not clear why this conclusion is hard to justify?