Top political scientist: U.S. voters are 'pretty damn stupid'

washingtonexaminer.com ^ | Nov 21 2010 | Byron York

[Sub-Driver]

Top political scientist: U.S. voters are 'pretty damn stupid'

Political reporters often rely on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin for expertise. In just the past few months, his insights have appeared in articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Associated Press, Politico, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and many other publications. He's also a co-founder of the influential website Pollster.com, as well as co-director of the Big Ten Battleground Poll.

So Franklin answered with considerable authority when he was asked, at a recent forum on the November 2 election results, why Republicans emerged victorious in so many races. "I'm not endorsing the American voter," Franklin said. "They're pretty damn stupid."

Franklin was responding to a question from Bill Lueders, news editor of Isthmus, a weekly alternative newspaper in Madison, Wisconsin. In an account published Thursday (H/T Ann Althouse), Lueders says he asked Franklin why "the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who'll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich."

"Franklin, perhaps a bit too candidly, conceded the point," Lueders writes. "'I'm not endorsing the American voter,' he answered. 'They're pretty damn stupid.'"

Lueders writes that he responded, "Thank you, professor. That's the answer I was looking for." The rest of Lueders' account explains that smart voters support things like high-speed rail and higher taxes for the rich, while dumb voters support "an obvious phony like [Republican senator-elect] Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold."

[indianrightwinger]

Anal’cysts think that “economic” interests are the only issues that drive people. They never consider the possibility that “Freedom” may be a factor. :-)

[Billthedrill]

You put your finger on it, IMHO.

Lueders says he asked Franklin why "the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who'll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich."

Underlying this is a thoroughly internalized set of sophomoric assumptions - voters are only significant as members of social classes and not as individuals, only vote class interests (if they're to be regarded as "smart") and that those class interests are exclusively economic. Marx Lite. And even old Karl must be dropping tears of frustration into the Lake of Fire.

"Fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich" isn't even that, it's mindless cant. If tossing gold coins to the statue of John D. Rockefeller would result in them being used to stimulate economic activity for the masses then voting for it would be in the latter's economic class interest. These guys can't even stick within their own silly theories.

[dsc]

“Whether or not that’s true, they still aren’t eligible to win the Big 10”

No, they’re not. Of course, they could beat any team in the Big 10, and they are the best college team in the country, but what is that when the subject is winning the Big 10?