Posted on 11/03/2004 3:00:21 PM PST by freespirited
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, writes:
Apropos the conservatism and "stupidity" issue, you may find interesting the attached data from my analysis of the 2000 National Election Study (the NES is the most comprehensive US survey of political attitudes and knowledge, which breaks down political knowledge by strength of party affiliation.
Note that "Strong Republicans" have much higher political knowledge levels than any other group. The 3.3 gap on a 31 point scale between "Strong Republicans" and "Strong Democrats" may not seem like much, but it is the equivalent of that created by a difference of SEVERAL YEARS of formal education.
Now I note that political knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence (indeed, I have to caution people on this every time I present one of my papers on political ignorance), but I think lack of knowledge is often what people have in mind when they attack conservatives as "stupid."
I also note that I am not suggesting that people become Republicans BECAUSE they are more knowledgeable. The knowledge gap may simply be an artifact of the fact that highly educated, high income people, are disproportionately likely to be Republicans. Still, it is simply false to say that conservative Republicans are more likely to be politically ignorant than liberal Democrats. The opposite is in fact the case, though independents are on average far more ignorant than either group.
Another irony: the British Conservative Party that Mill was attacking in the 1860s had at least as much in common with modern liberals as with modern Conservatives. For instance, the Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli invented the "two Nations" mantra that John Edwards has transmogrified into "Two Americas." 1860s Conservatives were also supporters of workplace regulation and protectionism, though on some other issues (e.g. - imperialism) they did differ from modern liberals.
Here's the table that Ilya attached:
Table 2.5 Political Knowledge by Strength of Party Identification 2000 National Election Study Self-Described Party Alignment / Average Political Knowledge Score (Average number of correct answers on 31 point scale)
"Strong Republican" / 18.7 "Independent-Republican" / 15.7 "Strong Democrat" / 15.4 "Independent-Democrat" / 14.2 "Weak Republican" / 14.1 "Weak Democrat" / 13.3 "Independent-Independent" / 9.5
. . . there are all sorts of other possible explanations here: For instance, it may be that in 2000 Strong Republicans were more politically energized than Strong Democrats because of their opposition to the incumbent President Clinton. I surely won't claim much Republican superiority based on this. But I do think that it's a helpful response to claims of conservative stupidity, claims that are often made but rarely supported.
Had he bothered to look into the survey details first he would have seen how silly his "Republicans were energized by opposition to Clinton" argument was." The survey covered questions not just about the presidential election, but also about House and Senate races and the political process.
I have to wonder why Volokh feels obligated to explain away data that he apparently did not bother to learn about.
Wonder no more. As is often the case here on FR, someone is available to disabuse you. Volokh has to continue to be able to publish, work, have friends, and be invited to parties. So he has to mitigate his results.
It's just us highly educated, rich Republicans, you know.
LOL, Professor Volokh will be amused to learn that he is now a Democrat. (He's not...except in the Dim's wet dreams.) He's actually a really smart guy and he's on our side. When he qualifies his findings he is actually being "conservative" in his claims to make sure that his credibility remains impeccable. That way when he asserts that strong Republican's are the smartest (or at least most knowledgable) political group, not even the Dims can say he stretched to truth any to reach that conclusion.
If you doubt his credentials check out his pro RKBA analysis of the 2nd Amendment here:
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/common.htm
"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms."<<--....Just started reading..but "unusually" in the previous sentence hung me up..would "unusual" suffice or am i missing what Mrs. Tracy taught me in 8th grade?...no biggie..but I respect scholars...(Ain't got much to do tonite either!..*W*)
This is "high-fallutin" academic sentence structure. In other words, it's all mixed up. "Unusually" is modifying the word "contains" so it's the adverb form. Reading the sentence for the first time, it seems like it should be modifying "Second Amendment" in which case the adjective form "unusual" would be correct. Although the grammar is correct, this is just bad/unclear writing on the part of the professor.
BTW, you can blame the bad writing on the anti-2nd Amendment liberal professor. Dr. Volohk was quoting him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.