American Democracy: The 10 Alarm Fire We're Ignoring

What was I thinking when I decided to name my book: Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter? I'm starting to wonder. Reviewers are finding the title easy to mock (I knew they would). And it's led one or two to conclude I'm the stupid one. Still, I'm convinced it was the right title.

First, I think book readers will understand that I am not talking about them, contrary to what one reviewer suggested (no, I’m not going to name this person). I am talking about people who don't think hard about politics not those who do. Somebody buying my book is obviously interested in the subject and willing to explore it.

Second, the title was meant to be provocative but that's all. My purpose in going for this kind of title was to try to get a national debate going about a topic most of us would rather not talk about. My goal was not to characterize the American people but our politics. It would be stupid to say that the American people are stupid--as stupid as saying the American people are smart. It's impossible to generalize--and silly. But our politics are often stupid. And there are times when no other word, harsh as it is, seems to capture the essence of the turn politics have taken.

Over the last few months we've had national debates about Barack Obama's bowling score, Hillary Clinton's knocking back a tumbler of Scotch, and John McCain's non-stop smiling. Earlier in the primary season there were stories about the candidates' sex lives. I read in the New York Times of all places that Elizabeth Edwards had popped a rib when she and her husband were copulating and that the wife of Rudy Giuliani referred to her husband as a "high testosterone" kind of guy. (Of course, as the past publisher of the paper once cleverly remarked, it's not sex when the New York Times does this kind of story, it's sociology.)

What's the harm? Years ago I would have thought stories like these merely part of the fun and frolic of an American campaign and nothing to worry about. But maybe we should be worried. These should be the side dishes of a campaign but in our era they have become the main course. Superficiality is ubiquitous.

What convinced me that these kinds of stories are alarming evidence of a major problem? Our debates about 9/11 and Iraq. As became irrefutably clear in scientific polls undertaken after 9/11 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), millions of Americans simply cannot fathom the twists and turns that complicated debates take.

In January 2003, three months before our invasion of Iraq, the survey-takers found that a majority of Americans falsely believed that “Iraq played an important role in 9/11.” Over the next year and a half PIPA polls indicated that a persistent 57 percent believed that Saddam Hussein was helping al Qaeda at the time we were attacked. (Other polls came up with higher numbers. For instance, in September 2003 a Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Americans believed Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks.) In the spring of 2004 the 9/11 Commission flatly stated that Saddam had not provided support to al Qaeda. The Commission’s findings received saturation coverage. Nonetheless, in August of the same year, according to a PIPA poll, 50 percent were still insisting that Saddam had given “substantial” support to al Qaeda. (A full two years later, in 2006, a Zogby International poll indicated that 46 percent of Americans continued to believe that “there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”)

The illusion that Saddam was behind 9/11 had real-world consequences. A poll for Investor’s Business Daily and the Christian Science Monitor cited by the PIPA researchers found that 80 percent of those who backed the Iraq War in 2003 said that a key reason for their support was their belief that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

Another clear indication of public ignorance concerned the claim that Saddam possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” which became such a ubiquitous part of the national conversation that the phrase soon became known by its initials: WMD. Poll results show that the voters were quick to absorb the administration line, but only slowly came to realize that they had been snowed. As late as the spring of 2004 a clear majority remained unaware that experts such as Hans Blix (head of the UN weapons inspectors), David Kay (the former head of the Iraq Survey Group), and Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for counterterrorism) had firmly concluded that Iraq lacked WMD at the time of our invasion, even though their findings had received wide publicity.

Finally, there was the question of world opinion. By all measures the Iraq War was unpopular around the world. On the eve of the war millions protested, bitterly denouncing George W. Bush and the United States. In several countries these were the largest anti-American rallies ever held. Opposition was strong even in countries that were traditional American allies, such as Spain. Most Americans, however, did not comprehend the isolation of the United States. According to PIPA, the majority either believed that world opinion was about evenly divided or actually favored the war (31 percent were in the second camp). Only 35 percent realized that the planned invasion had drawn far more criticism than support.

Given all this, a robust debate about public opinion would seem warranted. If Americans cannot think straight about events of the magnitude of 9/11 and the Iraq War, what can they think straight about? But no such debate has been forthcoming. Instead, we have had endless arguments about the media and the nefariousness of the Bush administration. Both of these arguments have merit, in my opinion. But the real problem is with Americans. Too many simply pay so little attention to politics that they are sitting ducks for manipulative politicians.

I acknowledge in the book that Americans are good at recognizing success and failure. After several years of being bamboozled they finally came round to the view that the war was a mistake. But while mistakes are inevitable we should be able to avoid the ones based on flagrant misinformation, as this one was. The reason we weren't was because too many voters simply didn't take the time to investigate the administration's claims.

The fact is politicians count on voters being stupid. They play on peoples' emotions, exploit their fears, and summon myths from the depths of the national culture to advance their hold on the voters' hearts and minds. Were the voters smarter the pols would play politics differently.

If politicians were angels we wouldn't need smart voters. But they aren't. So we do.

Are we worse off than in the past? We are. Half a century ago voters were better prepared to take on the responsibilities of good citizens, this despite the fact that they were less well educated then than now. (In 1940 six in ten Americans didn't get past the 8th grade. Today most have spent some time in college.)

So what happened? Television is a big part of the explanation. Once television replaced newspapers as the chief source of news – this happened around 1965—shallowness was inescapable as Americans began judging politicians by how they looked and acted. Another factor was the collapse of the traditional two-party system and unions. Once voters stopped taking their cues from party and labor bosses they were largely on their own as they sorted through the complicated choices they face.

We need to talk about all this, even it's uncomfortable doing so. We cannot keep playing politics as we have and expect different results.