Political scientists have been well aware since the early 1960s that what most people know about politics and government is minimal and that their beliefs lack constraint. Constraint is the idea that the things one believes should make sense together. Philip Converse (who is still alive, believe it or not) made his name by demonstrating that only a small percentage of Americans constrain their thinking in ideological terms. In the past decade or two we've seen an explosion of the use of ideological terms – liberal, conservative, socialist – but that doesn't mean they are used correctly. To the average crank, "liberal" means "Stuff I don't like."
This is not news to anyone. Whether you keep yourself current on public opinion data, study political science, or merely listen to the nonsense ideas people express constantly about politics, we recognize that opinions about one issue are not necessarily connected to opinions on another.
buy Alphagan generic buy Alphagan online over the counter
This is true of Americans of any demographic, although better educated people tend to have slightly more coherent belief systems.
Writers who need to generate some content but can't think of a good idea can reliably churn out a "Look how stupid Americans are!" piece using polling data. It's hardly surprising. That said, I think most of us were a little floored to see just how little sense the political beliefs of "millennials" make. As in, they appear to make no sense at all.
This made the rounds online recently, and they do require some caveats. One is that young people generally know the least about politics, and this is not unique to the current crop. The second is that it is possible to have somewhat useful political beliefs without being able to answer the kind of questions that academics and pollsters expect you to be able to answer. Even with those caveats, this is pretty bad. A couple things stand out.
Even more than most Americans, their beliefs appear to hinge on how things are pitched and what terms are used. They are repelled by the term "Obamacare" to a greater extent than their elders, despite liking Obama and being supportive of national healthcare (What?). It seems that these responses are twisted by opposing forces – these kids have been bombarded by conservative propaganda since birth (hence their allergy to terms like "liberal" and "Obamacare") while their own political preferences, to the extent that they have any, are not nearly as paleolithic.
The years of Fox News and Tea Party-themed lectures from dad lead to them rejecting things that contain the wrong keywords – Government bad! Liberal bad! Taxes evil! – but that aversion is not necessarily connected to any of their actual opinions.
Perhaps I'm trying too hard to read something into the aggregate data; maybe they really are as ignorant as the numerous "OMG look at how dumb they are" pieces suggest. Nonetheless, the data imply that things won't be getting much better in the foreseeable future.
Larry, The Barefoot Bum says:
It has to be non- or mis-education. We cannot expect people to just magically acquire coherent political beliefs. I think we're doing a poor job, both in elementary and secondary school, as well as in college (I'm a 51 year old political science/economics undergraduate, about to head to grad school (any advice?)), of giving people a basic political education – not what they should thing, but how to think about politics and economics.. We're leaving the task largely to the media, who cannot be expected to do a better job.
Of course, it's not really the actual teachers' or instructors' fault. We've been systematically dismantling our education system since the 1970s. Why should capitalists — conservatives or progressives — want a well-educated populace? We can't wait for the capitalist ruling class to save the people.
Marinus Ferreira says:
There's another reason to downplay the effect of such surveys: Condorcet's paradox, or the phenomenon that when you throw a bunch of individual opinions into a pot, even if all of an individual's opinions are coherent with each other, the aggregate of them may not be. Though Condorcet's paradox is usually talked about as something that relates to voting, the logic carries over.
So, as fucked up as our generation (and every other generation) may be, we probably should keep in mind that some of the problems are with how such polls are compiled and presented.
skwerlhugger says:
Sounds like me in the late 60s. Don't like the government? Check. Like social programs? Check. Succumb to human nature and student thriftiness turn to greed when faced with my first serious income? Check. Surrounded by floundering, messed-up single parents, yet not too smart about actually applying it to my own hormones? Check. Ok, it would have been if I'd been better at it. Like the socialism concept, but of course the details are confusing? Replace with Communism/USSR & Red China, check. I'd quibble with that, by the way– in common usage, "socialism" is "social programs", not managed economy.
Then I got to this one: "Young people voted overwhelmingly for Obama when he promised universal health care,", went and scanned the source for the origin of "when", and realized I'd just fallen for "lies, damn lies, statistics… and surveys bringing up the rear". This screams for an infographic; I bet Barry Ritholtz would post it.
By the way, a fiscally conservative, socially progressive position is quite rational. Start here, then follow every other developed country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
anotherbozo says:
I think it was Jimmy Kimmel's show that surveyed a sampling of pedestrians a while back and found that support for the "Affordable Care Act" far outstripped "Obamacare." Then there was my perennial favorite, Jaywalking with Jay Leno.
Comedy shows reveal more about the electorate than serious surveys. Suggesting that the serious surveys should best be read as comedy. Dark, dark comedy.
All of this would be ameliorated if you educators would just do your jobs. (rim shot)
Major Kong says:
The classic example would be rebranding the Estate Tax as the "Death Tax".
Anubis Bard says:
I've spent much of the past few months interviewing people on this topic and I see a couple of contradictory things. On the one hand NO ONE is asking average Americans to harbor the least iota of political thought or analysis. And I don't mean just party politics – I mean the everyday practice of putting an opinion in play in a context where it is likely to be engaged with or disputed. Do politicians or the media want you to think? Does your supervisor in STFU Corp. want your opinion on anything? Do you have rich political discussions with a circle of friends – whether on FaceBook or in meatspace – who do more than argue whether John Oliver or Bill O'Reilly last night was completely right or only mostly right? So what kinds of response are you going to get going up to people and asking them their rationales for why Hillary Clinton or Ted Cruz should be head of our bureaucratized military industrial complex?
On the other hand, when I ask most people about what the purpose of government is – and give them free reign to talk in their own terms about the underlying issues of power, regulation, institutional capture, social responsibility and so on, I find thoughtful people capable of all kinds of reasoning that this democracy is not eliciting from them. Yes, their thinking is unconstrained, they are woefully out of practice, they hold many mutually incompatible desires and conclusions – but people are not as ignorant, stupid and incompetent as we like to pretend. The interviewers for Kimmel or Leno who troll for morans are very good at their jobs, but that's entertainment, not research.
The political pollsters that I've seen seem to stand in the smoldering wreckage of our derailed democracy. They lick the end of their pencil and primly ask their series of questions: "So who do you blame for this violent derailment?"; "Do you think the price of the ticket was too high or too low?"; "Do you believe that alcohol should be served in the club car? what about if is served to children, gays or slutty women?"; "Do you think anything should be done about the fire currently consuming the locomotive? If so, what?"; "Who do you think should be the next engineer and why?"
It's not surprising that the answers they get are perplexing.
Dude Please says:
I love how a post about "Lack of Constraint" is itself an example of it plus another word that always comes up when Ed talks about people younger than himself – confirmation bias. When opining about some group uncritically consuming media narratives one should examine the media narratives – i.e. Kids Today – one is uncritically consuming.
As a Political Scientist one should be able to see this doesn't pass the smell test.
1. Instead of the actual poll data, you link to a pundit with obvious biases making broad generalizations about a study which is also making rather broad interpretations based on a single poll.
2. The poll is sponsored by The Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank which is not exactly agenda free.
3. The study makes generalizations about the methodology and claims to have weighted results to show the population, but withholds hard data on the actual questions asked and the actual age, gender, race, income, etc of each respondent. This is a tell because: a) question wording can impact results and b) no amount of fiddling can mitigate the bullshit of groups who are over or under represented when the sample size is so small already.
4. Even without hard data, the poll seems absurd. 2000 people to represent 11 years of human experience. If perfectly distributed, that would be 181 people per age, and it clearly wasn't perfectly distributed.
5. Does it even make sense to aggregate the political views of an 18 year old with someone who is 29? Consider your own political evolution over that time. Isn't the more rational explanation about incoherence that a small sample of exceedingly different people result in contradictions?
6. On what basis are you claiming these poll results are somehow worse than previous generations? NONE, because this study has no historical data, it just makes claims on one survey of dubious provenance.
Here's actual intelligent analysis, from the Christian post of all places: "An ideologically consistent respondent who prefers socialism over capitalism should also prefer a government managed economy to a free market economy. But, only 10 percent of the sample, or somewhere between 6.6 and 13.4 percent when accounting for the margin of error, likely caused the discrepancy. (Assuming all those who preferred a government managed economy also preferred socialism. The crosstabs were not provided.)
If 10 percent of Millennials are inconsistent, this does not warrant the sweeping claims that Millennials in general are "totally incoherent," "don't make any sense," and "don't know what socialism is." All the other seemingly incoherent answers reported by the authors can be explained by less, often much less, than a majority of the Millennial respondents.
Other supposed inconsistencies may not be as inconsistent as they appear on the surface. For instance, 55 percent of Millennials would like to start their own business and 48 percent of Millennials say that businesses mostly get rich at someone else's expense. Matthews sees this as evidence of Millennial incoherency.
Without the crosstabs, there is no way to know what portion of the sample holds the supposedly incoherent position (wants to start a business and believes businesses get rich at others' expense) — it could be as low as three percent or as high as 48 percent.
Is it even, though, an incoherent position? Believing that businesses "mostly" get rich at others' expense does not mean that your business will do so. Some of these Millennials may want to start a business that operates differently from how they believe most businesses operate. Alternatively, maybe they actually want to get rich at others' expense. (Being a Scrooge does not make one incoherent.)"
Dude Please says:
"Comedy shows reveal more about the electorate than serious surveys. Suggesting that the serious surveys should best be read as comedy. Dark, dark comedy."
Actually what such comedy shows prove is that judicious editing, loaded questions and both conscious and unconscious manipulation produce the punchline you want. For example, the interviewer can signal the response they want with tone and expression or if people recognize the camera or figure out the bit, they may give the response you want.
This is especially true with crap like Jaywalking – which only prove that when you stick a camera in someone's face an ask them a question with no prep, they may forget everything they know.
cat says:
The ACA/Obamacare isn't national health care, its government subsidies to buy health insurance which usually leads to health care. Some of the health care plans offered are artfully crafted to make getting the health care you need too expensive or to inconvenient even if it would be approved.
You can't fault the respondents because they are be able to tell the difference.
I also believe the Government spends to much money and spends to little money. We don't need to spend the 800B on the military we do and we need to spend more on education etc.
I really think most of these surveys are crap meant to generate hits, the original click bait if you will.
grumpygradstudent says:
My experience with teaching undergrads over the past several years is that they're all libertarians. They are cool with sexual and racial equality, and they want to be able to drink, smoke dope, and have sex.
However, they are generally against redistributive social programs, higher taxes, or deficit stimulus spending.
My theory is that school cultivates a belief in meritocracy. The "good students" do well, and the "bad students" do poorly. They believe that since they made it to college, they deserve their higher salaries in life. The idea that people who succeed had advantages that other people didn't is really difficult for them to grasp.
I hope that as they grow older, they'll grow more sensitive.
I have also seen how unconstrained they are in their beliefs. In my classes, I often try to stress the tradeoffs that we have to make in government. More money for this means less for that. Pursuing this goal means that one will suffer, etc. It's extremely difficult to get them to grasp those concepts.
anotherbozo says:
@ Dude Please: Dude, please.
So what you're saying is that the American public is much smarter than the comedy shows would seem to reveal? That the interviewees are in on the joke and playing dumb for the cameras, when the shows themselves don't edit out all the intelligent responses?
I would love you to be right. Seriously. However, everything in government, and other, "legitimate" polls, seem to suggest otherwise.
Skipper says:
Nothing quite so illustrates the phenomenon as the elderly Teabagger at a rally with the sign saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Emerson Dameron says:
@Dude:
I'm willing to give the Reason Foundation some credit here. I would expect it to throw all its resources into cultivating a new generation of Reaganites who are picking up what the Tea Party is laying down and totally privvy to hepcats like G-Norq. This doesn't seem to do that at all.
Dude Please says:
"So what you're saying is that the American public is much smarter than the comedy shows would seem to reveal? That the interviewees are in on the joke and playing dumb for the cameras,when the shows themselves don't edit out all the intelligent responses?"
"The American Public" is one of those empty generalizations which oft reveals the overinflated superiority of the user.
Intelligence and awareness varies from person to person – people can be smart about one thing and ignorant on another, even trained spokespeople. This is what comedy stunts play upon. They seek to provoke people into blurting out inane things. Some do play along even if they recognize the trick. And yes, selective editing is key as anyone with half a brain knows.
Making statements about "the American Public" based on Late Night reality stunts is no different than making policy based on the fake exposes of James O'Keefe. It means one ignores the obvious manipulation when it flatters one's own worldview and sense of superiority.
proverbialleadballoon says:
Thanks, Ed, oddly I was having a conversation with an anti-union family member, and I was looking for a better word for 'your position makes no sense when put together', and apparently, that word is 'constraint.' (anti-union, and anti-immigrant, so against both sides of the equation regarding 'who builds stuff', just who is supposed to build shit, then?)
anotherbozo says:
% Dude Please:
I notice you used the word "superiority" twice. Let the record show that I personally owe what education I have to fine public schools and temporary rift in the American plutocracy that allowed me a degree at a major college on the taxpayer's dime, i.e., the luck of good timing, nothing more or less. So much for sneering at anyone.
So if someone stuck a mike in your face and asked you to name our opponent in the Revolutionary War, what would you say? Or in what century World War II occurred? Sorry, I don't buy the collusion argument. "People can be smart about one thing…" Dude, you're trying too hard. Basic history should be everybody's business.
And apparently you're against generalization, generally speaking. Ever taken a sociology or history course yourself? How did they avoid speaking of nationalities, of people? Hard to know where you're coming from, if not from the compulsive desire to go on debating…someone with "half a brain."
You may respond if you choose, but I think I'll get off this carousel here.
Dude Please says:
"This doesn't seem to do that at all."
The actual report is mostly analysis with a small appendix on methodoligy which is only percentages, no hard data. They don't include the poll questions which elicited the responses. The age/gender/income/etc. of actual respondents is omitted instead it merely says responses which were weighted to allegedly represent the total population.
As Marinus Ferreira points out, this is a very weak basis for analysis. The aggregate of individuals with different opinions will be incoherent even though eash person has coherent views. All this proves is such a diverse range of ages cannot be summed up as holding a single coherent world view. Which, duh.
As the article I quoted points out some of these allegedly alarming views involve a minority of responses and others are dubious because the results aren't cross tabulated.
Discussing the alleged lack of critical thinking of some group, obligates one to use more critical thinking oneself, rather than what merely seems to be true.
Gerald McGrew says:
I definitely chalk this up to poor survey questions and the results being spun to suit a specific agenda.
A few years ago I actually responded to a phone survey. They were all "Yes or No" questions. And once I responded to that poll, I got on some list that was shared around and I ended up getting at least 10 calls per week from different surveys. All of them only wanted yes or no, or "On a scale of 1 to 5" answers. Thus, you had a situation like…
"Do you support increasing federal spending on social programs?"
Yes.
"Do you believe federal spending should be increased, decreased, or stay the same?"
Decreased.
Without any nuance or explanation, my answers can be spun as, "Gerald wants more social programs, but doesn't want to pay for it. What an idiot!" But given the format of the survey, there's no way to capture my view that our defense and national security (spying) spending needs to be dramatically cut, and some of that money (not all) redirected towards social programs.
It reminds me of something I heard from a computer modeler, that I'll paraphrase for this subject: All surveys are wrong; some are useful.
Andrew says:
I support Obama and national health insurance, and I dislike Obamacare because it's NOT national health insurance. I'm an Xer by just one year (i.e., almost a Boomer).
Ed says:
You're right, I should stop looking at data and trying to think of testable explanations for them.
Khaled says:
Eh, I think this has to do with what our current political climate has created- a society in which we expect – no, DEMAND!!!- Cadillac government services on a Yugo budget. We all hate taxes, and everyone seems to think that we pay too much. On the flip side, when asked what we want to cut, "waste fraud and abuse" seems to be the only thing standing between our tax dollars and nirvana. Between the welfare queens driving Cadillacs, 47% not paying income taxes to corporate tax dodgers, each side has it's boogeymen- people who "mooch" and don't pay their fair share. To be honest, the Republicans seem to be the more dishonest of them, but the Democrats play the same game (although not nearly as well).
We seem to demand that our government be more efficient than the private sector with a fraction of the funding. Millennials fall into this trap- as grumpygradstudent points out- today's college student doesn't understand or want to understand choices or bias or privilege. He or she has heard countless attacks upon "government" being wasteful, gets mad about their taxes and wonders why the roads suck, or why we don't have nice things compared to Europe (train systems, lower cost secondary education, etc). Incoherent? Maybe. Reflective of a society that one minute declares government spending as wasteful until you need FEMA to show up and bail your ass out? Absolutely.
Scott says:
The Kimmel and Leno street interviews are mind-boggling, but you have to keep in the back of your mind the fact that they interview dozens or hundreds of people, and anybody who doesn't sound like an idiot doesn't get on the show.
anotherbozo says:
Scott: It is true that the interviewees are selected for laughs. The bits are not supposed to be objective surveys. Duh. But I will insist that the producers didn't have to labor too long to come up with five minutes' worth of paydirt.
The segments are, however–and brace yourself, I'm going to be subjective here—emblematic of the state of miseducation in this country, the reason why we are somewhere south of Albania in educational proficiency and basic knowledge, know more about Jay-Z than rudimentary geography and are quite pleased with ourselves anyway. Good night.
Ed says:
Obviously they just cut the video of people who answer intelligently, but if forced to bet my life savings on it I would also assume that they do not have to do many interviews to get some really dumb ones.
James Hare says:
My daughter just finished 8th grade. For a period I was her main civics teacher because she had to be held out of school for two months and that was the best we could manage. She learned the material pretty well but it ended up being basically wasted time. When she returned to school her civics class turned into the same shallow American Pride stuff kids get these days. There is a real problem with teaching government in this country. Apparently the story the schools want to tell is the idealized version of American government where truth/justice/beauty/the American Way are basically guaranteed by the wisdom of the framers. When she answered questions with the nuance and depth I had tried to teach her she got marked wrong. Not "we don't need this much detail" but failing tests wrong.
When the best you get is that it's easy to understand why kids/young adults don't have coherent political views. They can't mesh what they hear about on the news with the terribly flawed view of our government they were given in school. I can't imagine how anyone could have coherent political beliefs when the image of government we give them is so terribly incoherent.
My Truth Hurts says:
It's because this younger generation grew up under an educational system that no longer teaches people how to think. They have also been coddled and not allowed to know failure. You yourself have encountered students who feel entitled to good grades even when they didn't earn them. They're unthinking idiots who demand instant gratification and validation. God I'm only 41 but I think I sound like an 80 year old from when I was only 21. But it's true, they have a lot of confidence and no intelligence or thinking and reasoning skills. They are vessels filled with facts to pass tests. They have no real thinking skills.