Fear, Fear, Fear Of a New Thing

Well, frumps, I must say that one nice thing about conspiracy theories is that they have a relatively short shelf life. Maybe that has to do with the emotional intensity that adherents are willing to invest in a particular theory; perhaps they fizzle out from sheer exhaustion – or boredom.

Experts argue about why we concoct and ascribe to conspiracy theories but since this is my blog and only background information, I’m going to treat you to my favorites, which also happen to serve my purpose. Christopher Hitchens calls conspiracy theories the ‘exhaust fumes of democracy’, (that just tickles me) the unavoidable result of a large amount of information circulating among a large number of people.

Conspiracy theories can be emotionally satisfying when they place inexplicable events in a more understandable, moral context. Subscribers to conspiracy theories are able to assign moral responsibility for a disturbing event or situation to an outside group of readily identifiable individuals. Very young children (and many adults) react with “Not my fault” whenever anything unpleasant arises, whether they’ve been blamed or not. Conspiracy theories are just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying “How could this have happened? I know it’s not my fault.”

The United States is a veritable hotbed of conspiracy theories, according to Chip Berlet, of Political Research Associates think tank. “From the Salem witch trials to tales about the Freemasons, from theories about the Kennedy assassination to the popularity of “The X-Files,” America has had a long love affair with conspiracy theories.

Not surprisingly, conspiracy theories occur more frequently within communities that are experiencing social isolation or political dis-empowerment.

AHA! Political disempowerment – that’s like what has happened to the Republican Party, right? They lost the Presidency, lost the majority, lost their base, lost their minds. Not only did they lose but they lost to someone who isn’t supposed to be able to beat them. “Roll out the conspiracy theories, quick, before our brains break.”

Now we’ve already seen a bunch of Lulu’s, in the conspiracy theory (CT) department, over the past year. I won’t go into all of the gory details, but I do have breaking news in this department. That’s right, the conspiracy theory that has topped the list for almost a year – the “Birther” theory – has been eclipsed by the “ACORN stole the election” theory, according to a new poll just out from Public Policy Polling (PPP).

Yep, it’s official, the new CT that is taking the GOP by storm is the “ACORN Stole the Election” theory at a whopping 52% – a true majority – of Republicans stating that they believe that ACORN padded the ballot boxes during the 2008 Presidential election, ergo Obama is not a legitimate President. There now, that feels better, doesn’t it?

Here’s the official breakdown:

The poll asked this question: “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?”

The overall top-line is: legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided.

Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%.

By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.

The good old “Birther” theory is still hanging in there at 42% of all Republicans professing belief. That would indicate that there’s probably a good bit of overlap between the Birther and Acorn theory camps – mind-boggling much?

Now let’s think about this a little, in order to buy into this theory one has to believe that ACORN stuffed 9.8 million fake votes, Obama’s national margin, into urban ballot boxes.

How’s that for reality-challenged? I think it says a lot about the GOP base demographic and it should send a strong message to party leadership that it might be time for a new game plan, not to mention a new base, but I’m not holding my breath. Who knows? maybe Republicans are finding it exotic and exciting to be all paranoid and inbred.

Just to show how much potential this new theory has to go even more viral, it was barely out of the box, when Doug Hoffman of NY-23 loser fame decided that this CT had his name all over it. Poor Doug had to come up with something outside the usual electoral process since the recount in his district only confirmed the fact that he did, indeed, hand a 100% year old Republican seat to his Democratic opponent, Bill Owens. I suspect Hoffman’s mentor, Glenn Beck, had a hand in this.

I think it’s possible that Doug took a shine to “the smell of the greasepaint, the roar of the crowd” because, although the election is (finally) over, Doug is still sounding like a campaigner. He has a page of his website devoted to explicating his ACORN theory in a lengthy letter entitled “Stolen Election.” The letter winds up with this postscript:

“P.S. I ran a different kind of campaign, one where Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party and 9/12 activists rallied around. ACORN, the unions and Democratic Party were scared, and that’s why they tampered with the ballots of voters in NY-23. Will you please contribute today so we can show them that fair elections are the Will of the People? Thank you.”

Clearly it is beyond Candidate Hoffman’s comprehension that he just might have lost an election in which he was not the best candidate. That maybe “The Will of the People” of NY-23 was to not elect a candidate from out of their district that looked like a deer in the headlights when he was asked to elaborate on his plan to address local issues. Sheeeeeesh . . .

I’m beginning to wonder whether this political madness is the “new normal” or an aberration. Will we someday recover and laugh about it? I’m not even certain when things started to change so much. Surely I was present and reasonably attentive and certainly there were, in my opinion, political up and downs along the way – but how did we drift so far. In my search for an answer I’ve come across some pretty enlightening stuff that may help to explain the pickle we’re in.

One source after another points pretty convincingly to ignorance. That is not to say stupid, there are plenty of certifiably brainy Americans underfoot but we are largely ignorant about our history, our Constitution, and our political process and that is a problem when it comes to voting intelligently.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174951

Rick Shenkman has made it his business to investigate the havoc that an uninformed electorate can wreak on a democracy. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and founder of the always provocative website History News Network. Shenkman has also written a wonderful book that is entitled

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465077714/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20SafariHTML\Shell\Open\Command

Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter.

Here are a few little Shenkman gems to get you thinking and I’ll finish off with two very different videos. One is what is known as a video Op-Ed and is straightforward and edifying. The second is Rick Shenkman’s appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it’s fun – and edifying.

Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who’s in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country’s long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.

Sound familiar?

“The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.”

But they all can vote regardless of what they know . . . or don’t know

“In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.”

“The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?”

“Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.”

“If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.”

“How much ignorance can a country stand? There have to be terrible consequences when it reaches a certain level. But what level? And with what consequences, exactly? The answers to these questions are unknowable. But can we doubt that if we persist on the path we are on that we shall, one day, perhaps not too far into the distant future, find out the answers?”

They’re Everywhere, They’re Everywhere . . .

The United States is a veritable hotbed of conspiracy theories, according to Chip Berlet, of Political Research Associates think tank. “From the Salem witch trials to tales about the Freemasons, from theories about the Kennedy assassination to the popularity of “The X-Files,” America has had a long love affair with conspiracy theories.

Not surprisingly, conspiracy theories occur more frequently within communities that are experiencing social isolation or political dis-empowerment.

It’s a Question of Legitimacy . . .

Here’s the official breakdown:

The poll asked this question: “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?”

The overall top-line is: legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided.

Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%.

By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.

Now let’s think about this a little, in order to buy into this theory one has to believe that ACORN stuffed 9.8 million fake votes, Obama’s national margin, into urban ballot boxes.

Coulda Been a Contender

Just to show how much potential this new theory has to go even more viral, it was barely out of the box, before Doug Hoffman, of NY-23 loser fame, was all over it. Poor Doug had to come up with something outside the usual electoral process since the recount in his district only confirmed the fact that he did, indeed, hand a 100- year-old Republican seat to his Democratic opponent, Bill Owens. I suspect Hoffman’s mentor, Glenn Beck, might have whispered ACORN in Doug’s ear. Who knows better than Beck how therapeutic a good conspiracy theory can be.

“P.S. I ran a different kind of campaign, one where Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party and 9/12 activists rallied around. ACORN, the unions and Democratic Party were scared, and that’s why they tampered with the ballots of voters in NY-23. Will you please contribute today so we can show them that fair elections are the Will of the People? Thank you.”

Clearly it is beyond Candidate Hoffman’s comprehension that he just might have lost the election because he was not the best candidate. That maybe “The Will of the People” of NY-23 was to not elect a candidate from out of their district that looked like a deer in the headlights when he was asked to elaborate on his plan to address local issues. Sheeeeeesh . . .

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Know What The Hell We’re Talking About

One source after another points pretty convincingly to garden-variety ignorance. That is not to say “stupid,” there are plenty of certifiably brainy Americans underfoot but we are largely ignorant about our history, our Constitution, and our political process and that is a problem when it comes to voting intelligently.

In my travels I happened upon a fellow, Rick Shenkman, who has done some pretty interesting research on our topic, thanks to Tom Englehardt of tomdispatch.com.

Rick Shenkman has made it his business to investigate the havoc that an uninformed electorate can wreak on a democracy. He is an award-winning investigative journalist and founder of the History News Network website. Shenkman has also written a wonderful book that is entitled Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth about the American Voter.

I’ve pulled a few little Shenkman gems, from his article at tomdispatch.com entitled How Ignorant Are We? to get you thinking and I’ll finish off with two very different videos featuring Rick Shenkman. One is what is known as a video Op-Ed and is short, straightforward and edifying. The second is Rick Shenkman’s appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and it’s funny – and edifying.

Here are some thought-provoking (sometimes shocking) snippets from the article How Ignorant Are We?:

“Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who’s in charge. Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts. Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country’s long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.”

Sound familiar?

“The most comprehensive surveys, the National Election Studies (NES), were carried out by the University of Michigan beginning in the late 1940s. What these studies showed was that Americans fall into three categories with regard to their political knowledge. A tiny percentage know a lot about politics, up to 50%-60% know enough to answer very simple questions, and the rest know next to nothing.”

But they all can vote regardless of what they know . . . or don’t know.

“In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%.”

“The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?”

“Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators.”

“If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution.”

“How much ignorance can a country stand? There have to be terrible consequences when it reaches a certain level. But what level? And with what consequences, exactly? The answers to these questions are unknowable. But can we doubt that if we persist on the path we are on that we shall, one day, perhaps not too far into the distant future, find out the answers?”