This article in the New York Times got my blood boiling and my heart pumping today.
There is a new book out that answers a riddle the elites have been asking for 7 years now. Why did the American people elect George Bush President?
Answer? They’re as dumb as posts and irrational to boot:
Now Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing? In his provocative new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,†Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.†Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself.In defending democracy, theorists of public choice sometimes invoke what they call “the miracle of aggregation.†It might seem obvious that few voters fully understand the intricacies of, say, single-payer universal health care. (I certainly don’t.) But imagine, Caplan writes, that just 1 percent of voters are fully informed and the other 99 percent are so ignorant that they vote at random. In a campaign between two candidates, one of whom has an excellent health care plan and the other a horrible plan, the candidates evenly split the ignorant voters’ ballots. Since all the well-informed voters opt for the candidate with the good health care plan, she wins. Thus, even in a democracy composed almost exclusively of the ignorant, we achieve first-rate health care.
The hitch, as Caplan points out, is that this miracle of aggregation works only if the errors are random. When that’s the case, the thousands of ill-informed votes in favor of the bad health plan are canceled out by thousands of equally ignorant votes in favor of the good plan. But Caplan argues that in the real world, voters make systematic mistakes about economic policy — and probably other policy issues too.
Caplan’s idiotic notions regarding the irrationality and ignorance of voters is so far off the mark as to why people vote the way they do it is beyond belief. The elites ensconced in ivory towers in academia don’t have a clue about people like you and me. We may as well be from another planet as far as their understanding as to what motivates us to vote for one candidate or another. Trying to qualify our reasons is an exercise in brainless futility.
Voting is the ultimate exercise of personal freedom. To social scientists trying to examine the reasons for why people make the political choices they do, it becomes necessary to ignore the competing interests and yearnings of the voter and settle on seeing this tug of war between altruism and selfishness as “irrationality.”
People want to vote for the “right” candidate. They are as earnest in their “ignorance” in choosing the best person for the job as any lickspittle professor with advanced degrees up the wazoo. But they are moved in mysterious ways – likability of the candidate, thematic presentations of a candidate’s program, and always fear of the consequences of voting for the other guy.
And so far, the American electorate has done pretty well. In the nuclear age, when the choice of President could literally have meant life and death, the people have chosen like, well…college professors with advanced degrees out of the wazoo. A Truman as opposed to an isolationist Dewey. An Eisenhower twice as opposed to a cerebral and statist Stevenson. A Kennedy as opposed to a Nixon. (Picture Nixon during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would a young Nixon have backed down so expertly?) Perhaps the Johnson-Goldwater race was more about a martyred President so chalk that one up to irrationality. But Nixon – putting aside his dark proclivities – in ‘68 was the answer to lawlessness in the streets and the Viet Nam quagmire while Humphrey promised more of the same – disaster.
Carter/Ford was a toss up – the people lost. Carter/Reagan was a no brainer. Ditto Reagan/Mondale. Ditto Dukakis/Bush. I would even say that Clinton circa 1992 was a better choice than a fatally damaged Bush who broke his promise not to raise taxes. And were the American people really going to elect Bob Dole President?
This brings us to 2000 and the idea that the American people made a mistake:
Of all the people who deserve some blame for the debacle in Iraq, don’t forget the American public. Today, about two-thirds of Americans oppose the war. But back in March 2003, when United States troops stormed into Iraq, nearly three out of four Americans supported the invasion. Doves say that the public was suckered into war by a deceitful White House, and hawks say that the press has since led the public to lose its nerve — but the two sides implicitly agree that the public has been dangerously unsure, or easily propagandized, or ignorant.
In 2003, Bush had the credibility to lay out a case for war that the public found logical and thus supported. It is not the voter’s fault that Bush and his Administration mucked it up. And if you’re trying to blame the voters for electing Bush in the first place, one might want to ask what the alternative was.
Al Gore was part of an Administration that virtually enabled al-Qaeda to attack America whenever it chose. It is difficult to know what Gore would have done after 9/11 but I think it more than possible that he would have lobbed a few cruise missiles at Afghanistan trying to take out Bin Laden and gone the United Nations route.; sanctions, resolutions, and words of solidarity couched in the usual apologetic tones of “So sorry we can’t do anymore.” Regime change would have been off the table. And Bin Laden would not only have been free and on the loose, but hugely emboldened and the biggest hero in the Arab world since Saladin.
No Iraq War but instead of hiding in a cave somewhere, Bin Laden would still be operating openly. To be fair, it’s pretty clear that if a Gore Administration listened to people like Richard Clark, a serious effort would have gotten underway to attack the terrorist group financially and via law enforcement by rolling up their cells. But smashing their infrastructure and destroying their safe haven in Afghanistan would probably not have occurred.
Would we have been better off? No one knows which makes this whole idea of voter irrationality an elitist fantasy. People like Caplan prefer to see their carefully thought out political choices as superior to the emotional, inspired, and intrinsically personal choice made by the rest of us.
There may be another reason Caplan sees the rest of us as idiots. Ann Althouse:
I’m picking up a bit of the old: if only people thought clearly, they’d agree with me. I’m never surprised when a professor discovers that democracy is defective because Americans aren’t more left-wing. But unlike Althaus, Caplan thinks voters are incompetent because they aren’t libertarian enough.
Voters are moved by so many different stimuli that it is silly to think that because they don’t agree with you that there is something wrong with them. I believe it shows the professor’s ignorance of not only politics, but human behavior as well to expect voters to make choices based on his “learned” criteria. People choose a candidate for many reasons – some good, some bad. But given the track record of the American voter over 219 years, they get it right a helluva more than they get it wrong.
2:08 pm
Nice job summing up reality – I shudder to think what would be the case today if Gore had been in office. At least we are taking out terrorists ‘there” and not in my backyard….
2:53 pm
My take on this is here, Rick.
My problem with all technocrats is that they make two assumption:
1) their idea of merit will prevail;
2) they have merit.
3:26 pm
That’s kind of funny of you to say, given your claims that “60% of Democrats are insane because they think it possible that Bush was behind 9/11”—this based on a logic that, say, “Screw Loose Change” finds faulty.
So you claim that voters made a conscious choice of Bush over Gore based on their idea of their response to an event that didn’t happen then? This with Bush sounding more isolationist than Gore in the debates and, in fact, scaling down anti-Al-Qaeda operations when he became a president? That is, indeed, nutty.
Actually, you should have said: “The US would already be a part of the Caliphate, Christians would already be second-class citizens and bin Laden would be the UN Secretary”. That makes about as much sense, but sounds more powerful.
4:51 pm
“Answer? They’re as dumb as posts and irrational to boot:”
And of course, according to those same elites (like your brother Terry said in the Duke rape case) we’re all racist.
Not to mention sexist (misogynistic), homophobic, earth-raping, and elderly-starving.
5:31 pm
Nico;ay:
That may be the most confused, convoluted, illogical post you’ve ever left here.
And that’s saying something.
Eric:
Next time you mention my brother in any context not associated with a post on this blog, you’re banned.
7:55 pm
I agree with you on the Bush (41) tax increase, but for the record the dems promised spending cuts to get his support and welshed on the deal.
To suspect that people now, in this world environment, would base it on a tax litmus test is not very likely.
10:52 pm
Where the argument falls apart is the premise that the candidate, even with a “perfect†idea of how to solve an issue, would somehow get the legislation passed without having to make any compromise or modifications. It could very well be that a candidate that is less knowledgeable but who has better political skills and important political allies might get more done. There are way to many other variables in voting on a candidate to boil it down to a stand on a particular group of issues.
12:18 am
Bush imo is the worst president ever, but Rick thinks Gore would have been worse? To be worse Gore would have to sacrifice live babies on national tv all the while praying to satan and flogging himself. Bush is an incompetent boob surrounded by incompetent boobs. How much worse can you get….jeez
2:00 am
“But given the track record of the American voter over 219 years, they get it right a helluva more than they get it wrong.”
(a) Given the vagueraries of the representative system in the US I would say that the “People” chose Gore (most votes) but the system chose Bush (how those votes affect the result). A minor point perhaps, but worth noting when talking about what people have chosen.
(b) Comparing what actually happened against your imagined version of history if it had gone differently is just comparing reality against your biased guesswork (all we have when judging what might have been). Hardly enough for the hard statement above.
(c) “No one knows which makes this whole idea of voter irrationality an elitist fantasy.” Just acecdotally, you think more than, say, 5% of voters could tell you even three policies of their chosen candidate? It is like saying that someone saying “I like Thursdays best because they are more sunny” is acting rationally. Just because they have a reason does not mean that they are acting rationally.
Still, I’d rather representative democracy than any set of academics running things.
6:21 am
And that’s saying something.Well, did you, or did you not claim that 61% of Democrats are certifiable insane? The answer is, yes. It’s kind of inconsistent, to talk about the “wisdom of the voter” and to claim that the majority of the voters of the majority party are “certifiable insane”.
I’m not saying that “wisdom of the voter” is the wrong idea, only that you’re a wrong guy to voice that idea. The snobbishness of Caplan is probably wrong, but it is nothing compared to your open disgust for the voter.
10:24 am
Actually, Rick, you undermine your own argument by trash-mouthing Gore. Because, as we all know, he got more votes than George. The Electoral College did Gore in, not the majority of voters.
3:25 pm
Ricky, baby, I’m not mad you deleted my comment. I’m thrilled to know you still care. Love you too, you crazy old man.
Btw, ever gonna apologize for threatening your poor would be supporter?
I deleted your comment because there was an obscenity and you know it. And WTF are you talking about? I have never threatened anyone in my life.
You are certifiable.
RM
4:30 pm
“Bush imo is the worst president ever”
You aren’t very well-read in history, then.
11:22 pm
Your post shows that you didn’t read the book…or at least, learned what the book was about by reading various sources.
Read more about who caplan is and then repost.
5:07 am
capln is just an idiotic elitist writer who has no idea how the sane middle main street folks here in America vote. The leftists don’t understand our values and what we want, that is where they make their mistake and they continue to make em on a daily basis, which is fine with me.
Rick, there are alot of folks you outta ban from your post, personal attacks on your family is not acceptable in my humble opinion, no matter what his politics may be.
Lets just all try and show some tact here, O.K.
5:05 pm
Now that I no I are two ignrant 2 vote, do the book say I shuld or shuld not vote nxt thyme? Cain’t reed no book sew let me no.
Typical elitist view, “I’m right … period.”