What do you think?
Rate this book
Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter
Fifty percent of Americans can name four characters from “The Simpsons,” but only two out of five can name all three branches of the federal government. No more than one in seven can find Iraq on a map. Just how stupid are we? Pretty stupid.In Just How Stupid Are We?, best-selling author Rick Shenkman takes aim at our great national piety: the wisdom of the American people. American democracy is as direct as it’s ever been—but voters are misusing, abusing, and abdicating their political power. At once a powerful indictment of voter apathy and political indifference, Just How Stupid Are We? also provides concrete proposals for reforming our institutions—the government, the media, civic organizations, political parties—to make them work better for the American people. But first, Shenkman argues, we must reform ourselves.
256 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 2008
38 people are currently reading
601 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews
July 22, 2008
In a word, this book is terrible.
I'm not saying this because the book says I'm stupid. I generally agree with the majority of the book - Americans haven't a clue about civics and they can be led by the nose by smart politicians and mass media. (and a little mass hysteria) The book is right on target - I just don't like how the author talked it through.
The entire book reads like a series of blog posts, of the caliber you'd find on one of the A list political blogs like TPM. A whole lot of hand wringing and anecdotal remarks mixed in with some actual data. The first few chapters were interesting, nay, shocking in their statistics as they outlined the scope of America's stupidity. But then it just kept going on, and on, and on, like one of those drunk guests at a dinner party who keeps interrupting everyone's conversations to talk about his ex-wife's new boyfriend in loud, obnoxious terms. After a while, you just roll your eyes and say "Get on with it!"
Worse still is the hypocrisy in the book - the author berates us for being morons, but made a conscious decision to not include foot notes and references within the actual text of the book - relegating these to the back of the book. His decision for doing this is noted to be for the benefit of the common reader - in that common readers aren't going to understand footnotes, so lets just ignore them.
This was a HUGE mistake, leading us "common" readers to question pretty much every statement and argument as its written. Adding footnotes at the end of a statement adds credence to it, and while I might not go look up every single one, its helpful in separating the "facts" from the "hearsay." By moving the footnotes away from the text, the author further shows his contempt for his readers.
Also, in hindsight, the whole point of this book is in a word, stupid. This is definitely a "preaching to the choir" book, in that none of the poor stupid people so lambasted in the book are actually going to read it. In other words, it really does no good other than to further stereotype and generalize people - which is the last thing we need if we want to turn this around.
Finally, this book is a bitch fest with very few actual solutions. This is because its very easy to criticize people, but much harder to actually work on the remedy. He wrote one chapter at the end that lays out some fairly decent, if not debatable, ideas, but none of them are coalesced into real courses of action and they are still interspersed with vitriol and contempt. Here is a metaphor I came up with, in the form of a conversation between a doctor and a patient:
Patient: "My chest hurts real bad doc, I think I'm having a heart attack!"
Doctor: "What's your diet and exercise routine?"
Patient: "Well, I'm pretty busy, so I eat a lot of fast food and don't get a whole lot of time to exercise."
Doctor: "You are an idiot. I've heard that 40% of people in your weight bracket, with those habits, die of heart attack before they are 60. You moron. You will never get better. And don't count on the rest of us to help you out either. Oh, and your dog hates you too."
Patient: "But, what should I do now?! I'm having a real heart attack here!"
Doctor: "Well, then you better go see a doctor. You idiot."
That pretty much sums up the book for me.
I'm not saying this because the book says I'm stupid. I generally agree with the majority of the book - Americans haven't a clue about civics and they can be led by the nose by smart politicians and mass media. (and a little mass hysteria) The book is right on target - I just don't like how the author talked it through.
The entire book reads like a series of blog posts, of the caliber you'd find on one of the A list political blogs like TPM. A whole lot of hand wringing and anecdotal remarks mixed in with some actual data. The first few chapters were interesting, nay, shocking in their statistics as they outlined the scope of America's stupidity. But then it just kept going on, and on, and on, like one of those drunk guests at a dinner party who keeps interrupting everyone's conversations to talk about his ex-wife's new boyfriend in loud, obnoxious terms. After a while, you just roll your eyes and say "Get on with it!"
Worse still is the hypocrisy in the book - the author berates us for being morons, but made a conscious decision to not include foot notes and references within the actual text of the book - relegating these to the back of the book. His decision for doing this is noted to be for the benefit of the common reader - in that common readers aren't going to understand footnotes, so lets just ignore them.
This was a HUGE mistake, leading us "common" readers to question pretty much every statement and argument as its written. Adding footnotes at the end of a statement adds credence to it, and while I might not go look up every single one, its helpful in separating the "facts" from the "hearsay." By moving the footnotes away from the text, the author further shows his contempt for his readers.
Also, in hindsight, the whole point of this book is in a word, stupid. This is definitely a "preaching to the choir" book, in that none of the poor stupid people so lambasted in the book are actually going to read it. In other words, it really does no good other than to further stereotype and generalize people - which is the last thing we need if we want to turn this around.
Finally, this book is a bitch fest with very few actual solutions. This is because its very easy to criticize people, but much harder to actually work on the remedy. He wrote one chapter at the end that lays out some fairly decent, if not debatable, ideas, but none of them are coalesced into real courses of action and they are still interspersed with vitriol and contempt. Here is a metaphor I came up with, in the form of a conversation between a doctor and a patient:
Patient: "My chest hurts real bad doc, I think I'm having a heart attack!"
Doctor: "What's your diet and exercise routine?"
Patient: "Well, I'm pretty busy, so I eat a lot of fast food and don't get a whole lot of time to exercise."
Doctor: "You are an idiot. I've heard that 40% of people in your weight bracket, with those habits, die of heart attack before they are 60. You moron. You will never get better. And don't count on the rest of us to help you out either. Oh, and your dog hates you too."
Patient: "But, what should I do now?! I'm having a real heart attack here!"
Doctor: "Well, then you better go see a doctor. You idiot."
That pretty much sums up the book for me.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 10, 2008
There is a thriving cottage industry these days of books debating the stupidity of Americans: whether the assertion is true, if so what causes it, what the ramifications are, and what, if anything, can or should be done.
This is also a hot topic, increasingly, in the popular press. The lead story in the July/August 2008 _Atlantic_ asks "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" and the answer argued with supporting evidence is, in brief, yes, while on the same newsstand (for those who actually still browse bookstores and newstands) the July _Esquire_ makes a glib attempt at the opposing view in A. J. Jacobs' "You (We) Are Not Stupid."
For a magesterial overview of how we got to the current situation, see Susan Jacoby's _The Age of American Unreason_. For a reflective consideration of the impact of the Internet from a cautionary side, see Lee Siegel's _Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob_. For the more comforting counterargument that pop culture and video games are making us smarter and better prepared for the future, check out Steven Johnson's _Everything Bad Is Good for You_.
How does Shenkman's book fit into this subgenre? Well, the subtitle is "Facing the Truth about the American Voter." It argues voters vote irrationally, based on cultural myths and effective advertising or TV spin, rather than thoughtful consideration of political platforms, actual current events, or their own best interest. It is written in a breezy, light style, so it is a quick read, and seems to be targeting the audience it describes as stupid--the ones responding to the polls in overwhelming numbers demonstrating ignorance of basic geography, civics, history, etc. Why would those already not in agreement with his argument read this book? Well, the author is a professor with a track record of successfully marketed breezy books on the impact of myth in American politics and history, and I suspect he would like to see this book assigned in college classrooms.
It doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know or suspect, but it does effectively use anecdotal evidence and documented data to establish for a general audience that there is a serious problem here, and that instead of blaming the media or opposition political parties, maybe we should stop romanticizing the driving purpose of "the American People" and hold ourselves, collectively, more responsible for challenging the way we allow the media (in particular television), the consumer culture, and political campaigns marketed like new cola drinks to manipulate us so easily. Perhaps we get what we deserve, but to the detriment of the entire planet.....
His advice? We need to demand debates about important issues, turn off ALL the spin machines, and evaluate ideas. We need to admit how stupid we are, and that more advanced degrees aren't needed, but some heavy emphasis on basic civics classes (and lots of remedial review!) The power of polls should be curtailed, and all polling should require those polled to demonstrate their knowledge of a subject before they offer an opinion on it.
Although there are no footnotes (which scare "the American People" he describes away from books, anyway), a brief bibliographic essay at the back could provide those motivated to probe deeper into some of the specific topic areas he raises. Although I doubt a majority of Americans will jump on this bandwagon, I think any extended conversations about our need for more civic awareness, striving a little bit harder for what Jefferson envisioned as an informed and critically thinking electorate, would be good for America.
This is also a hot topic, increasingly, in the popular press. The lead story in the July/August 2008 _Atlantic_ asks "Is Google Making Us Stoopid?" and the answer argued with supporting evidence is, in brief, yes, while on the same newsstand (for those who actually still browse bookstores and newstands) the July _Esquire_ makes a glib attempt at the opposing view in A. J. Jacobs' "You (We) Are Not Stupid."
For a magesterial overview of how we got to the current situation, see Susan Jacoby's _The Age of American Unreason_. For a reflective consideration of the impact of the Internet from a cautionary side, see Lee Siegel's _Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob_. For the more comforting counterargument that pop culture and video games are making us smarter and better prepared for the future, check out Steven Johnson's _Everything Bad Is Good for You_.
How does Shenkman's book fit into this subgenre? Well, the subtitle is "Facing the Truth about the American Voter." It argues voters vote irrationally, based on cultural myths and effective advertising or TV spin, rather than thoughtful consideration of political platforms, actual current events, or their own best interest. It is written in a breezy, light style, so it is a quick read, and seems to be targeting the audience it describes as stupid--the ones responding to the polls in overwhelming numbers demonstrating ignorance of basic geography, civics, history, etc. Why would those already not in agreement with his argument read this book? Well, the author is a professor with a track record of successfully marketed breezy books on the impact of myth in American politics and history, and I suspect he would like to see this book assigned in college classrooms.
It doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know or suspect, but it does effectively use anecdotal evidence and documented data to establish for a general audience that there is a serious problem here, and that instead of blaming the media or opposition political parties, maybe we should stop romanticizing the driving purpose of "the American People" and hold ourselves, collectively, more responsible for challenging the way we allow the media (in particular television), the consumer culture, and political campaigns marketed like new cola drinks to manipulate us so easily. Perhaps we get what we deserve, but to the detriment of the entire planet.....
His advice? We need to demand debates about important issues, turn off ALL the spin machines, and evaluate ideas. We need to admit how stupid we are, and that more advanced degrees aren't needed, but some heavy emphasis on basic civics classes (and lots of remedial review!) The power of polls should be curtailed, and all polling should require those polled to demonstrate their knowledge of a subject before they offer an opinion on it.
Although there are no footnotes (which scare "the American People" he describes away from books, anyway), a brief bibliographic essay at the back could provide those motivated to probe deeper into some of the specific topic areas he raises. Although I doubt a majority of Americans will jump on this bandwagon, I think any extended conversations about our need for more civic awareness, striving a little bit harder for what Jefferson envisioned as an informed and critically thinking electorate, would be good for America.
August 13, 2018
Even though this book came out 10 years ago, it is still remarkably relevant to what we're facing today. Though it is an unpopular thing to say and you'll likely never hear a politician running for office say it, the fact is that many Americans are woefully ignorant of their own government and how it works. They are easily led, easily manipulated, and not very likely to critically examine their ignorance or, in fact, to take steps to change it. There are many reasons for this, among them a severe lack of civics education and politicians' and political campaigns' emphasis on heightened emotions and slogans rather than actual issues.
There was one section that really struck me when the author was talking about why there are limitations/checks and balances on voters having complete control. This quote from Alexander Hamilton sums it up:
"We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs of irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally and without one exception usurped the rights of the minority."
We're seeing evidence of this tendency now when you hear supporters of Trump willing to get rid of parts of the Constitution they don't like, willing to give up their right to vote, willing to go against the rights thought important by our Founding Fathers in order to give Trump almost absolute power. We see it in the woeful number of people eligible to vote who actually do. These people -- at least a large number of them -- likely have no idea what their ancestors went through in order to get the right to vote.
Our citizens' knowledge of and interest in the running of their own country, of even its history or how it works, is disgraceful.
There was one section that really struck me when the author was talking about why there are limitations/checks and balances on voters having complete control. This quote from Alexander Hamilton sums it up:
"We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs of irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power. The majority has eternally and without one exception usurped the rights of the minority."
We're seeing evidence of this tendency now when you hear supporters of Trump willing to get rid of parts of the Constitution they don't like, willing to give up their right to vote, willing to go against the rights thought important by our Founding Fathers in order to give Trump almost absolute power. We see it in the woeful number of people eligible to vote who actually do. These people -- at least a large number of them -- likely have no idea what their ancestors went through in order to get the right to vote.
Our citizens' knowledge of and interest in the running of their own country, of even its history or how it works, is disgraceful.
July 28, 2020
"Keep the people simple and distracted."
What other choice does our democracy have to keep the stability under unity? All the members of our society no matter what our profession and expertise is are allowed to have our voices heard, and all these different voices hurt the nation as a whole with too many different directions.
To keep our way of life with the people satisfied in it, the foreign policy must sail towards the same direction to keep the country as the head of the global order with all the necessary resources brought to our country, but people get to elect wrong person for the job due to domestic reasons without understanding, because international politics is not everyone's profession for living or at least we have enough leisure time to learn and think about it like the property owners of the time of our Founding Fathers. Everyone has a vote without understanding the importance of the clear foreign policy direction in order to keep the global order under control within the alliance system that makes our way of life possible.
The real face of our proud democracy: Although what the author talks about is true, no one's to be blamed because it's been the national policy to keep the people distracted and stupid (some people choose another word "ignorant", but I'd pick "innocent" for the people), so that the freedom of our access to the vital information doesn't really work with us people searching only for fun shows like sports or screen.
Modern democracy thrives upon deception, since those who lie telling the people what we wanna hear end up winning the office, so who to blame? Certainly not the "innocent" people who are deliberately tamed to be entertained for the social stability if not giving us any alternative solution. Without any solution for us it is not right for anyone to blame and call us "stupid."
Still the book works as a wake-up call, so I highly rate the book for its value and role. Many readers might get offended emotionally, which is our nature, but some people take this book as a tool for self-improvement. And if you really finish the reading to the last pages, you will realize that, despite the provocative title, the author's got no intention to insult or blame the people, but to in-form us.
What other choice does our democracy have to keep the stability under unity? All the members of our society no matter what our profession and expertise is are allowed to have our voices heard, and all these different voices hurt the nation as a whole with too many different directions.
To keep our way of life with the people satisfied in it, the foreign policy must sail towards the same direction to keep the country as the head of the global order with all the necessary resources brought to our country, but people get to elect wrong person for the job due to domestic reasons without understanding, because international politics is not everyone's profession for living or at least we have enough leisure time to learn and think about it like the property owners of the time of our Founding Fathers. Everyone has a vote without understanding the importance of the clear foreign policy direction in order to keep the global order under control within the alliance system that makes our way of life possible.
The real face of our proud democracy: Although what the author talks about is true, no one's to be blamed because it's been the national policy to keep the people distracted and stupid (some people choose another word "ignorant", but I'd pick "innocent" for the people), so that the freedom of our access to the vital information doesn't really work with us people searching only for fun shows like sports or screen.
Modern democracy thrives upon deception, since those who lie telling the people what we wanna hear end up winning the office, so who to blame? Certainly not the "innocent" people who are deliberately tamed to be entertained for the social stability if not giving us any alternative solution. Without any solution for us it is not right for anyone to blame and call us "stupid."
Still the book works as a wake-up call, so I highly rate the book for its value and role. Many readers might get offended emotionally, which is our nature, but some people take this book as a tool for self-improvement. And if you really finish the reading to the last pages, you will realize that, despite the provocative title, the author's got no intention to insult or blame the people, but to in-form us.
November 29, 2012
I picked this up because the title resonated with my beliefs about American voters (this is called confirmation bias). I was surprised to find that confirmation bias is not one of the ways in which Shenkman thinks we're stupid.
He outlines five ways in which he thinks we're stupid (and by we, I don't mean to imply that he's talking down to other people; he's talking about all of us). First, there's gross ignorance. Second, negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information. Third, wooden-headedness: The inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Then shortsightedness, and finally bone-headedness: susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
His argument rings true, and is also fairly depressing. He notes, "Anybody can have an opinion about killer whales or a president's sex life. But it takes knowledge and reflection to reach a considered opinion about the budget deficit or national security. Result: we largely skip theses subjects, focusing as a nation on ephemera instead."
He suggests that an antidote is to increase the amount of time spent on politics and civics in both high school and college. Seems highly unlikely to me.
I'll close with a quote from Adlai Stevenson, who initially resisted running television ads. "I don't think the American people want politics and the presidency to become the plaything of the high-pressure men, of the ghostwriters, of the public relations men. I think they will be shocked by such contempt for the intelligence of the American people. This isn't soap opera, this isn't Ivory Soap versus Palmolive."
Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
He outlines five ways in which he thinks we're stupid (and by we, I don't mean to imply that he's talking down to other people; he's talking about all of us). First, there's gross ignorance. Second, negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information. Third, wooden-headedness: The inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Then shortsightedness, and finally bone-headedness: susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
His argument rings true, and is also fairly depressing. He notes, "Anybody can have an opinion about killer whales or a president's sex life. But it takes knowledge and reflection to reach a considered opinion about the budget deficit or national security. Result: we largely skip theses subjects, focusing as a nation on ephemera instead."
He suggests that an antidote is to increase the amount of time spent on politics and civics in both high school and college. Seems highly unlikely to me.
I'll close with a quote from Adlai Stevenson, who initially resisted running television ads. "I don't think the American people want politics and the presidency to become the plaything of the high-pressure men, of the ghostwriters, of the public relations men. I think they will be shocked by such contempt for the intelligence of the American people. This isn't soap opera, this isn't Ivory Soap versus Palmolive."
Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
August 29, 2019
Maybe not as stupid as we were a few years ago
This is really about democracy in the age of mass media. What journalist and historian Rick Shenkman does is show how television and other mass media have changed the way democracy works in the United States. He shows how people are easily influenced by psychological factors, by "myths" and by appearances far more than they are by substantive issues or the policies of the candidates.
Shenkman thinks that civic lessons (his prescription in the final chapter) will solve the problem, but I think the problem is far deeper than might appear. Quite simply the modern state has gotten too complex for voters to comprehend how it might be governed. Consequently they have no idea whom to vote for since they don't have any idea which programs will work and which won't. So they try to make a judgment about a candidate, a gut feel for the man or woman. That's the best they can do. As Shenkman points out the average person with a job, a commute, family responsibilities, etc., doesn't have time to study the issues or to gain an understanding of the problems our societies face. What is more, the people actually holding office, our senators and congress persons themselves, don't have time to read the bills they vote on. They rely on staffers and lobbyists to do that for them, even including drafting the bills in the first place. In short we are becoming more and more removed from the actual process of governance. In the long run we may rely on software and robotic systems do the job of governing for us.
Because voters do not understand the issues except on the most elementary and emotional level, they are easily swayed by advertising. Thirty-second TV commercials are basically what voters rely on for information about the candidates. This allows those with the money to pay for the commercials to control elections. Large corporations contribute money to candidates that will do their bidding and those candidates use the money to fashion ads to seduce the electorate. What we have effectively is democracy by capitalism. I wish Shenkman had focused more on this aspect of the problem rather than on the stupidity of the average voter.
By the way, Shenkman gives five defining characteristics of stupidity on pages 14-15. They are "sheer ignorance," "negligence," "wooden-headedness," "shortsightedness," and "bone-headedness." I would say that stupidity is lethargy of the mind, a slowness to make connections, and willful ignorance. But however you define it, stupidity is a great failing.
Shenkman sees voters as relying on myths, such as George Washington never telling a lie or of Teddy Roosevelt leading a glorious charge up San Juan Hill. He quotes John F. Kennedy as saying "Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The central myth of American politics, Shenkman believes, is that of "The People," a term he invariably capitalizes. He credits James Madison with being one of the first politicians to make good use of this "endlessly elastic term (p. 65). He adds that this "classic throwaway line with a pleasant populist tinge" (also p. 65) has become endlessly useful in such pronouncement as "the wisdom of the people," or "The People" can be relied upon to discern the truth, to do the right thing, etc.
Politicians of whatever stripe habitually refer to "the American people" as believing this or that or wanting this or that or whatever it is that the politician is advocating or against. Clergymen pretend to speak for God. Politicians pretend to speak for the people. But The People is not a homogenous entity. The People is really a diverse group of conflicting interests. Nobody really speaks for The People anymore than anyone speaks for God. They would just like us to think they do.
As a historian it is natural that Shenkman give the reader a historical perspective on democracy in America, and he does that in excellent style. His prose is eminently readable and his command of American history admirable. He shows how democracy has changed from when only land owners could vote through the rise of so-called Jacksonian democracy to the enfranchisement of women to especially the age of television. (No doubt he is now writing about democracy in the age of the Internet, and I suspect also on how Barack Obama used that newest medium to defeat the Republicans last year.)
Shenkman reflects on the changes brought about by the shrinking of the influence of party bosses and labor unions. He recalls how John F. Kennedy's staff effectively used appearance before the television cameras to win the presidency in 1960 by defeating Richard Nixon (who apparently wasn't aware that "the camera never blinks" and would catch him sweating!). Shenkman relates how sound bites and catchy phrasing ("There you go again") helped to make a grade B movie actor president and leader of the free world, a man who is now credited with bringing down the Berlin Wall and Soviet communism. (More myths in the making!)
In the penultimate chapter Shenkman talks about how we can't publically talk about how stupid the electorate is. That's taboo. Liberals can't say the people are stupid because that goes against their principles. Conservatives can say it because those stupid people are the ones that voted them into office! Since the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court have largely been in the hands of the Republican Party.
Finally what fascinates me most about what has happened to American democracy over my lifetime has been how the average idiot has gone from being a donkey Democrat to being a Rethuglican. Hopefully after the disaster of the George W. Bush/Dick Chaney/Karl Rove/Donald Rumsfeld era the "stupid" electorate with gain some smarts and start electing people who at least believe in governing and who rely on rationality and evidence as opposed to faith-based ignorance.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
This is really about democracy in the age of mass media. What journalist and historian Rick Shenkman does is show how television and other mass media have changed the way democracy works in the United States. He shows how people are easily influenced by psychological factors, by "myths" and by appearances far more than they are by substantive issues or the policies of the candidates.
Shenkman thinks that civic lessons (his prescription in the final chapter) will solve the problem, but I think the problem is far deeper than might appear. Quite simply the modern state has gotten too complex for voters to comprehend how it might be governed. Consequently they have no idea whom to vote for since they don't have any idea which programs will work and which won't. So they try to make a judgment about a candidate, a gut feel for the man or woman. That's the best they can do. As Shenkman points out the average person with a job, a commute, family responsibilities, etc., doesn't have time to study the issues or to gain an understanding of the problems our societies face. What is more, the people actually holding office, our senators and congress persons themselves, don't have time to read the bills they vote on. They rely on staffers and lobbyists to do that for them, even including drafting the bills in the first place. In short we are becoming more and more removed from the actual process of governance. In the long run we may rely on software and robotic systems do the job of governing for us.
Because voters do not understand the issues except on the most elementary and emotional level, they are easily swayed by advertising. Thirty-second TV commercials are basically what voters rely on for information about the candidates. This allows those with the money to pay for the commercials to control elections. Large corporations contribute money to candidates that will do their bidding and those candidates use the money to fashion ads to seduce the electorate. What we have effectively is democracy by capitalism. I wish Shenkman had focused more on this aspect of the problem rather than on the stupidity of the average voter.
By the way, Shenkman gives five defining characteristics of stupidity on pages 14-15. They are "sheer ignorance," "negligence," "wooden-headedness," "shortsightedness," and "bone-headedness." I would say that stupidity is lethargy of the mind, a slowness to make connections, and willful ignorance. But however you define it, stupidity is a great failing.
Shenkman sees voters as relying on myths, such as George Washington never telling a lie or of Teddy Roosevelt leading a glorious charge up San Juan Hill. He quotes John F. Kennedy as saying "Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The central myth of American politics, Shenkman believes, is that of "The People," a term he invariably capitalizes. He credits James Madison with being one of the first politicians to make good use of this "endlessly elastic term (p. 65). He adds that this "classic throwaway line with a pleasant populist tinge" (also p. 65) has become endlessly useful in such pronouncement as "the wisdom of the people," or "The People" can be relied upon to discern the truth, to do the right thing, etc.
Politicians of whatever stripe habitually refer to "the American people" as believing this or that or wanting this or that or whatever it is that the politician is advocating or against. Clergymen pretend to speak for God. Politicians pretend to speak for the people. But The People is not a homogenous entity. The People is really a diverse group of conflicting interests. Nobody really speaks for The People anymore than anyone speaks for God. They would just like us to think they do.
As a historian it is natural that Shenkman give the reader a historical perspective on democracy in America, and he does that in excellent style. His prose is eminently readable and his command of American history admirable. He shows how democracy has changed from when only land owners could vote through the rise of so-called Jacksonian democracy to the enfranchisement of women to especially the age of television. (No doubt he is now writing about democracy in the age of the Internet, and I suspect also on how Barack Obama used that newest medium to defeat the Republicans last year.)
Shenkman reflects on the changes brought about by the shrinking of the influence of party bosses and labor unions. He recalls how John F. Kennedy's staff effectively used appearance before the television cameras to win the presidency in 1960 by defeating Richard Nixon (who apparently wasn't aware that "the camera never blinks" and would catch him sweating!). Shenkman relates how sound bites and catchy phrasing ("There you go again") helped to make a grade B movie actor president and leader of the free world, a man who is now credited with bringing down the Berlin Wall and Soviet communism. (More myths in the making!)
In the penultimate chapter Shenkman talks about how we can't publically talk about how stupid the electorate is. That's taboo. Liberals can't say the people are stupid because that goes against their principles. Conservatives can say it because those stupid people are the ones that voted them into office! Since the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court have largely been in the hands of the Republican Party.
Finally what fascinates me most about what has happened to American democracy over my lifetime has been how the average idiot has gone from being a donkey Democrat to being a Rethuglican. Hopefully after the disaster of the George W. Bush/Dick Chaney/Karl Rove/Donald Rumsfeld era the "stupid" electorate with gain some smarts and start electing people who at least believe in governing and who rely on rationality and evidence as opposed to faith-based ignorance.
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
March 21, 2024
This was a surprisingly thoughtful book.
It was not anywhere near as condescending in its time as the book sounded. It is a little dated to read at this point in time but I thought it was a well rounded read.
It was not anywhere near as condescending in its time as the book sounded. It is a little dated to read at this point in time but I thought it was a well rounded read.
October 3, 2008
The timing of this book seemed most appropriate (especially after last night's VP debate). Overall, Shenkman raises some excellent points. He is not afraid to call it as he sees it: Americans (i.e. The People) are stupid. We make "stupid" choices when it comes to who we have elected and it is--on the whole--our darn own fault. Too often the blame has been placed on media, the politicians, and so on. Shenkman places it rather squarely on us. The main reason this has taken place is because we believe in myths--myths about ourselves and myths about our politicians (i.e the war hero myth). He also forcefully argues that our lack of education about civics and the workings of government and current events are to blame as well. This is a rather obvious point, but it is worthwhile to raise nevertheless. He argues that we need to have difficult discussions and face challenging issues, and instead we have shied and even quickly run from them. 9/11 is one example. Iraq is another. We like to pass the buck instead of being accountable.
Overall, his arguments are well-crafted. He does run into a few contradictions in my opinion however. On the one hand he criticizes the internet and TV as being in part responsible for "dumbing us down," but on the other hand he seems to throw these media sources a bone in last chapter, and says they may be useful in helping to educate Americans. The nuances in his argument are there, but they could be flushed out a bit more; instead, certain aspects of what he is saying seem a little wonky.
The main point of his last chapter is to stress how civics needs to be taught at the high school and college level. While this is an excellent point, his final chapter does not close as strongly as it could. With that said, this is a quick, interesting, and relatively worthwhile read--obviously very relevant for current events.
Overall, his arguments are well-crafted. He does run into a few contradictions in my opinion however. On the one hand he criticizes the internet and TV as being in part responsible for "dumbing us down," but on the other hand he seems to throw these media sources a bone in last chapter, and says they may be useful in helping to educate Americans. The nuances in his argument are there, but they could be flushed out a bit more; instead, certain aspects of what he is saying seem a little wonky.
The main point of his last chapter is to stress how civics needs to be taught at the high school and college level. While this is an excellent point, his final chapter does not close as strongly as it could. With that said, this is a quick, interesting, and relatively worthwhile read--obviously very relevant for current events.
February 8, 2017
We're pretty stupid. In 2008 we were just really dumb. Now we're flat out stupido.
December 4, 2008
Not a great read, but interesting. I was on a political obsession at the time. We are a sadly ignorant country. The book did inspire me to pay more attention to what our political leaders are doing. We are responsible for ourselves and should be making intelligent choices when we head into the voting booth. I do keep up with politics somewhat, but now make sure I read a little more widely and keep up more by watching and reading a variety of sources, being more aware of the biases of the sources.
October 6, 2008
I get tired of books that rattle statistic after statistic about how poorly educated we are, even if we really are. I was happy to read an author that rightly puts the blame on a lack of civics education, but would like to learn more about how to truly educate yourself in a post-fact world.
October 8, 2019
I am giving
Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter,
by Rick Shenkman 3 of 5 stars beause it is good, but not great. Published in 2008, the book is simultaneously outdated and prophetic.
In Just How Stupid Are We? the author examines a taboo subject: the typical American citizen's ignorance of the basics needed for successful self-government. He discusses how journalists, members of both major parties, and most other observers point fingers at everyone and everything else but ignore the obvious problem: the ignorance of typical American voters.
One of the author's targets is polling. He notes that while pollsters ask the voters where they stand on an issue, they rarely ask whether the voter is informed on it.
Following is the story of one poll which gave contradictory results - and demonstrates the author's point.
Leaving little doubt about whether we are indeed dumb, Rick Shenkman looks at the power of myths and television. He asserts myths have become more important than facts, and claims that television makes us think we are smarter when we are actually less so.
Writing during the administration of George W. Bush, the author takes particular exception to some of the public's beliefs in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He also bemoans how voters can be taken in by the misleading spots, such as the attack ads that appear every election season. "Study after study shows that the spots are one of the voters' chief sources of information - and often the only source." [p. 108].
This may sound depressing, but Just How Stupid Are We? can provide insight to anyone seeking to understand the forces behind the election of populist candidates such as Donald Trump and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.
These populist forces are not new, and Rick Shenkman traces them back to the 1830s, writing of how both conservatives and liberals have been exploiting the power of myths, television, and more for a long time.
After reading Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, I am thinking it is unlikely the trend toward using twitter will help anything. Rick Shenkman's work has confirmed my suspicion that books are a much better source of information!
In Just How Stupid Are We? the author examines a taboo subject: the typical American citizen's ignorance of the basics needed for successful self-government. He discusses how journalists, members of both major parties, and most other observers point fingers at everyone and everything else but ignore the obvious problem: the ignorance of typical American voters.
One of the author's targets is polling. He notes that while pollsters ask the voters where they stand on an issue, they rarely ask whether the voter is informed on it.
Following is the story of one poll which gave contradictory results - and demonstrates the author's point.
Asked in one national poll whether they supported a constitutional amendment allowing only marriage between a man and a woman, a majority said yes. But three questions later a majority also agreed that 'defining marriage was not an important enough issue to be worth changing the Constitution.' The New York Times wryly summed up the results: Americans clearly favor amending the Constitution but not changing it.
— From Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman, p. 31.
Leaving little doubt about whether we are indeed dumb, Rick Shenkman looks at the power of myths and television. He asserts myths have become more important than facts, and claims that television makes us think we are smarter when we are actually less so.
Neither Jimmy Carter's enticing smile nor George W. Bush's down-home style, which seemed attractive on television, gave the voter solid clues as to their performance as president. In this way television misleads people. It gives them confidence that, because they can see the candidates, they 'know' who they really are. This is nonsense.
— From Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman, p. 106.
Writing during the administration of George W. Bush, the author takes particular exception to some of the public's beliefs in the wake of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. He also bemoans how voters can be taken in by the misleading spots, such as the attack ads that appear every election season. "Study after study shows that the spots are one of the voters' chief sources of information - and often the only source." [p. 108].
This may sound depressing, but Just How Stupid Are We? can provide insight to anyone seeking to understand the forces behind the election of populist candidates such as Donald Trump and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez.
These populist forces are not new, and Rick Shenkman traces them back to the 1830s, writing of how both conservatives and liberals have been exploiting the power of myths, television, and more for a long time.
After reading Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, I am thinking it is unlikely the trend toward using twitter will help anything. Rick Shenkman's work has confirmed my suspicion that books are a much better source of information!
December 5, 2023
"Just How Stupid Are We?" by Rick Shenkman falls short of expectations in its attempt to scrutinize the state of American democracy. While the author aims to provide a critical assessment of the electorate's role in the democratic process, the execution leaves much to be desired.
One glaring issue is the tone of condescension that permeates the narrative. Shenkman often comes across as dismissive, using provocative language that seems more focused on inciting a reaction than presenting an argument backed by data. I find this approach counterproductive, as it does little to bridge the gap between the intellectual elite and the wider public, and it risks alienating readers rather than engaging them in a thoughtful conversation.
The book occasionally oversimplifies complex issues and presents a somewhat reductionist view of the challenges facing democracy. Shenkman's analysis lacks the nuance necessary to address the intricate interplay of social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to the perceived shortcomings in American civic engagement. This oversimplification may leave readers with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the complexities involved.
Furthermore, the book neglects to adequately address the role of religious beliefs in shaping political attitudes and behaviors. Given the significant influence of religious perspectives on the American electorate, this omission represents a notable gap in Shenkman's analysis.
While the book raises important questions, its execution undermines its credibility and limits its impact on fostering a meaningful conversation about the state of democracy in the United States.
One glaring issue is the tone of condescension that permeates the narrative. Shenkman often comes across as dismissive, using provocative language that seems more focused on inciting a reaction than presenting an argument backed by data. I find this approach counterproductive, as it does little to bridge the gap between the intellectual elite and the wider public, and it risks alienating readers rather than engaging them in a thoughtful conversation.
The book occasionally oversimplifies complex issues and presents a somewhat reductionist view of the challenges facing democracy. Shenkman's analysis lacks the nuance necessary to address the intricate interplay of social, economic, and cultural factors that contribute to the perceived shortcomings in American civic engagement. This oversimplification may leave readers with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the complexities involved.
Furthermore, the book neglects to adequately address the role of religious beliefs in shaping political attitudes and behaviors. Given the significant influence of religious perspectives on the American electorate, this omission represents a notable gap in Shenkman's analysis.
While the book raises important questions, its execution undermines its credibility and limits its impact on fostering a meaningful conversation about the state of democracy in the United States.
October 25, 2021
The title tells you what this book is about.
Our progressively worsening ignorance about civics is demonstrated in the poor choices made by voters over the past 50 years. That decline in knowledge seems to correspond with the inability or unwillingness to READ. How can "We the People" of "the greatest nation on earth" be so stupid?
I'm not sure I agree with the author's position that when the party "bosses" chose candidates, they did a better job of vetting those candidates than the voters do with primary elections.
I do agree that TV and the media in general has a large influence on who voters choose, based on how photogenic they are in addition to what they say even though their speeches are largely scripted. On occasion we hear unscripted remarks that are given a great deal of weight, depending upon who heard them or how off-color they are.
The author recommends that reading the newspaper become part of civics education both in high school and college, suggesting that if there is a test, the young person will HAVE TO read the news to demonstrate an understanding of current events. Not a bad idea, but today, there are too few newspapers to choose from to get a comprehensive glimpse of the news. Maybe choosing a news magazine would be just as worthwhile, such as "Christian Science Monitor", which is what I read.
I like the suggestion to start a "democracy club" for regular discussion about the issues of the day. Someone has to organize that and choose the topics & have some facts prepared ahead of time, right?
Our progressively worsening ignorance about civics is demonstrated in the poor choices made by voters over the past 50 years. That decline in knowledge seems to correspond with the inability or unwillingness to READ. How can "We the People" of "the greatest nation on earth" be so stupid?
I'm not sure I agree with the author's position that when the party "bosses" chose candidates, they did a better job of vetting those candidates than the voters do with primary elections.
I do agree that TV and the media in general has a large influence on who voters choose, based on how photogenic they are in addition to what they say even though their speeches are largely scripted. On occasion we hear unscripted remarks that are given a great deal of weight, depending upon who heard them or how off-color they are.
The author recommends that reading the newspaper become part of civics education both in high school and college, suggesting that if there is a test, the young person will HAVE TO read the news to demonstrate an understanding of current events. Not a bad idea, but today, there are too few newspapers to choose from to get a comprehensive glimpse of the news. Maybe choosing a news magazine would be just as worthwhile, such as "Christian Science Monitor", which is what I read.
I like the suggestion to start a "democracy club" for regular discussion about the issues of the day. Someone has to organize that and choose the topics & have some facts prepared ahead of time, right?
August 28, 2017
This is one of those books that went onto the shelf but somehow got forgotten about, but I'm actually glad I read it nine years after its publishing date, because the book's premise most certainly foreshadowed the election of a shallow, uninformed, inexperienced, abrasive TV personality cult "hero". I heartily agree with the author's contention that we must add strong civics curriculum back into schools and generally stop being so stupid! I do, though, find his tone to sometimes become subtly elitist, such as in his assumption that all American students have the ability to go to college. His sometimes near-nostalgia for the old "party boss" system is baffling, too. However, he does offer a number of examples of our political history to demonstrate the backward slide in voter intelligence, enough to make any civic-minded person take pause and wonder where we as a nation may be headed.
March 11, 2017
After taking a bunch of political science classes during my college tenure, especially a few dealing with presidential politics, I was intrigued by the title of this book and the notion (which has long been studied in the realm of political science) that "The People" (or American voters) are flat-out just too stupid to elect a person as important as the President of the United States.
However, not five pages into the book, I came to the realization that author Rick Shenkman was not at all intending to thoroughly research the issue using proven political science techniques. Instead, although he obviously doesn't come right out and say it, it is very clear that the thought process behind the book was more like "How could the American public be dumb enough to elect George W. Bush as President?" Because of that single supposition, the entire framework of the book changes.
Instead of what could have been a very interesting study on the topic of voter privileges (and the abuse of them though ignorance), Shenkman instead just lays out a very basic case of how voters may or may not be up to the monumental tasks of electing what essentially amounts to the leader of the Free World. He covers topics such as voter ignorance, irrationality, myths, and television, yet never delves into the issues enough to really be considered an authority on the subject. The peer-reviewed journal articles I read back in those college politics classes were, while more difficult to decipher at times, much more scientific and procedural than anything this book puts together.
Now, don't get me wrong...there really isn't anything too blasphemous in this book (besides the Bush-Bashing tone, but to each his own, I guess). For readers who are relatively inexperienced in the political sphere "Just How Stupid Are We" will provide you with a great background from which you can investigate further if you so desire. However, higher-level political minds really won't learn anything new or concrete from the text, as it is just a collection of interesting facts/ideas with little empirical research.
However, not five pages into the book, I came to the realization that author Rick Shenkman was not at all intending to thoroughly research the issue using proven political science techniques. Instead, although he obviously doesn't come right out and say it, it is very clear that the thought process behind the book was more like "How could the American public be dumb enough to elect George W. Bush as President?" Because of that single supposition, the entire framework of the book changes.
Instead of what could have been a very interesting study on the topic of voter privileges (and the abuse of them though ignorance), Shenkman instead just lays out a very basic case of how voters may or may not be up to the monumental tasks of electing what essentially amounts to the leader of the Free World. He covers topics such as voter ignorance, irrationality, myths, and television, yet never delves into the issues enough to really be considered an authority on the subject. The peer-reviewed journal articles I read back in those college politics classes were, while more difficult to decipher at times, much more scientific and procedural than anything this book puts together.
Now, don't get me wrong...there really isn't anything too blasphemous in this book (besides the Bush-Bashing tone, but to each his own, I guess). For readers who are relatively inexperienced in the political sphere "Just How Stupid Are We" will provide you with a great background from which you can investigate further if you so desire. However, higher-level political minds really won't learn anything new or concrete from the text, as it is just a collection of interesting facts/ideas with little empirical research.
November 25, 2020
It is very relevant to where we are in history. It is funny to read about the hopes of someone in 2006, and to live to see them shattered by collective stupidity. The book is good, with some ramblings here and there but I picked up a lot of little snippets about US history that I did not know about. I used to think that the sole purpose of the senate was to defend slavery, but now I guess it was also crafted to defend riches and against the uneducated mob. I think the complex division and orchestration that happens with Congress is no longer needed and should be dissolved. Funny how the mob now has hijacked 5/6 of the federal government.
June 3, 2022
Kirjassa osoitetaan lähihistorian ongelmia sieltä täältä, mutta kaikki raapaisut ovat hyvin pinnallisia. Kirja muistuttaa enemmänkin yksinkertaista lentokenttäpokkaria. Voin ymmärtää, mitä punaista lankaa kirjailija on pyrkinyt hakemaan, mutta näin ohuilla eväillä kirja on hajuton ja mauton. Kirjan lukemisen jälkeen ei oikeastaan ole oppinut mitään uutta eikä kirja tuo mitään uutta läpimurtoa aihepiiriin. Parempiakin kirjoja aihepiiristä on olemassa, kuten Bryan Caplanin kirja "The Myth of The Rational Voter".
Arvosana: 2/5
Arvosana: 2/5
February 4, 2018
This book was... all right. He raises a lot of good points: People are easily manipulated by political slogans. We're not as smart as we think, and we failed to have a real conversation about what 9/11 meant. However, it's short on facts and long on diatribe. Also, for a book written in 2008, it's weird to see his optimism for the future considering the current state of politics.
October 18, 2023
Good topic, good discussion, backed with good examples. Probably resonated slightly less with me as a non-American. I thought the ending was a bit ridiculous at times. Civics education is definitely important, some of the suggestions in the book would have large unintended consequences
July 22, 2019
As timely (or more) today than when it was written. He makes a solid argument. I appreciate that though I felt disheartened by his conclusions.
August 8, 2020
Good review of the US voters' knowledge and understanding of civics, issues and candidates. Might be more meaningful today then when it was written in 2008
July 31, 2022
Dated, though published in 2008, The trump years of impeachments and doubt and
cross accusations have put us in a new era.
cross accusations have put us in a new era.
July 12, 2015
If more people were concerned about civics then what they wanted to buy we'd be a lot better off.
Here are a few of passages I would want other people to be aware of:
******
Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First is sheer ignorance: ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second is negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: the inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Fourth is shortsightedness: the support of public policies that are mutually exclusive, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better word: the susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
******
The mistakes voters make fall into four basic patterns, according to Samuel Popkin's review of the evidence. The first mistake is what is known as the Drunkard's Search. Like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under a sidewalk lamp because "that's where the best light is," voters tend to pick up information passively. The second mistake is that voters tend to remember personal information about candidates rather than hard facts about issues. Personal information picked up later tends to block out facts about issues learned earlier. Third, voters have a preference for yes/no answers, which provide "pseudo-certainty." They do not like ambiguity and they abhor complexity. Fourth, voters do not see the connections between actions and results. If the economy improves during a president's term, voters tend to give him the credit without knowing what, if anything, the president did or did not do to bring about these favorable conditions.
******
S. I. Hayakawa, the semanticist, raised two questions that might form the basis of a sustained critique relevant to our times. In Language in Action, he explores the appeal of propaganda, asking why and how it works. He argues that demagogues succeed in persuading people to support one thing or another through the use of meaningless abstractions, words like freedom and liberty, to guard themselves against the emotional power of such words, citizens need to be taught to demand language that is concrete. If an abstract word is used in a speech with no meaningful referent, the listener should disregard it. If the word freedom is not defined precisely, it should be ignored.
A second of his observations deals with a subject that is especially resonant. It is the use by demagogues of what he calls the "two-valued orientation." By this he means the false division of the world into two categories, good and evil. Anything that stands in the way of the demagogue's goals is considered evil, anything that furthers his goals is considered good. There is no middle ground. The consequence of this Manichean approach to politics is that the resort to violence is more likely, lb compromise is to give in to the demands of the devil. "As in Germany," he wrote, "it produces here the results of intoxication, fanaticism, and brutality. . . . Listeners who uncritically permit themselves to be carried away by such oratory week after week almost invariably find their pulses rising, their fists clenching, and the desire to act violently accumulating within them."
******
Here are a few of passages I would want other people to be aware of:
******
Five defining characteristics of stupidity, it seems to me, are readily apparent. First is sheer ignorance: ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. Second is negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. Third is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: the inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Fourth is shortsightedness: the support of public policies that are mutually exclusive, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better word: the susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
******
The mistakes voters make fall into four basic patterns, according to Samuel Popkin's review of the evidence. The first mistake is what is known as the Drunkard's Search. Like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under a sidewalk lamp because "that's where the best light is," voters tend to pick up information passively. The second mistake is that voters tend to remember personal information about candidates rather than hard facts about issues. Personal information picked up later tends to block out facts about issues learned earlier. Third, voters have a preference for yes/no answers, which provide "pseudo-certainty." They do not like ambiguity and they abhor complexity. Fourth, voters do not see the connections between actions and results. If the economy improves during a president's term, voters tend to give him the credit without knowing what, if anything, the president did or did not do to bring about these favorable conditions.
******
S. I. Hayakawa, the semanticist, raised two questions that might form the basis of a sustained critique relevant to our times. In Language in Action, he explores the appeal of propaganda, asking why and how it works. He argues that demagogues succeed in persuading people to support one thing or another through the use of meaningless abstractions, words like freedom and liberty, to guard themselves against the emotional power of such words, citizens need to be taught to demand language that is concrete. If an abstract word is used in a speech with no meaningful referent, the listener should disregard it. If the word freedom is not defined precisely, it should be ignored.
A second of his observations deals with a subject that is especially resonant. It is the use by demagogues of what he calls the "two-valued orientation." By this he means the false division of the world into two categories, good and evil. Anything that stands in the way of the demagogue's goals is considered evil, anything that furthers his goals is considered good. There is no middle ground. The consequence of this Manichean approach to politics is that the resort to violence is more likely, lb compromise is to give in to the demands of the devil. "As in Germany," he wrote, "it produces here the results of intoxication, fanaticism, and brutality. . . . Listeners who uncritically permit themselves to be carried away by such oratory week after week almost invariably find their pulses rising, their fists clenching, and the desire to act violently accumulating within them."
******
April 15, 2010
"Just How Stupid Are We", written by Rick Shenkman, might be the first book that has unequivocally substantiated my long time belief that we are really stupid people. It uses political elections to portray the public’s stupidity, and how easily the masses are swayed. It lays out factual data and mixes in his opinions on how easily politicians shift the public to vote one way or the other. I love it when he states things like how the masses are more interested in Palin's daughter giving birth out of wedlock. The gossip garners more attention than the fact that Biden was booted out of the 1988 Presidential election for Plagiarism.
The historian gives examples of several different elections showing us how we might back into good candidates, or we might elect people who are really just as dumb as all of us. Everyone is simply swayed by rhetoric and good speaking skills. The point is that no matter who we elect, we do it based on sheer stupidity. Now that I have read his book it makes much more since how Palin was thrust into our national spotlight to begin with. Nothing against the card carrying NRA Governor but please, is she really that interesting.
Keep in mind that Rick Shenkman is a liberal so his ideas of good and bad decisions may not necessarily coincide with us stout conservatives, but he does make some valid points. One of my favorite quotes is when he states, "I presume that a majority still do not know that the only country that has used nuclear weapons in a war is their own." Obviously he is speaking of us when he talks. I remember a few years back hearing of a study that asked random citizens where New Mexico was located and a large percentage didn't even know it was a state. Mexico is down south.
Whether you believe his political conclusions and support his liberal viewpoints or not, it is a very interesting read. How can we as the people be opposed or support a war in Iraq when most of us can't even find it on a map. Makes you wonder what they are teaching in our schools and who exactly is not getting left behind. One thing is for sure, Obama is black and he was elected President. That is a huge move in the right direction to unite our country, now if we can only figure out what this Congress thing is that everyone keeps talking about and who controls it we might be in business.
I would consider this book a must read for everyone and after you are done you will most likely subscribe to that newspaper you have long since given up on. The internet is a wonderful tool but we seem to be losing touch with what our nation is about. Electronics be damned, I can't understand how that little hanging chad didn't get punched all the way through to begin with.
The historian gives examples of several different elections showing us how we might back into good candidates, or we might elect people who are really just as dumb as all of us. Everyone is simply swayed by rhetoric and good speaking skills. The point is that no matter who we elect, we do it based on sheer stupidity. Now that I have read his book it makes much more since how Palin was thrust into our national spotlight to begin with. Nothing against the card carrying NRA Governor but please, is she really that interesting.
Keep in mind that Rick Shenkman is a liberal so his ideas of good and bad decisions may not necessarily coincide with us stout conservatives, but he does make some valid points. One of my favorite quotes is when he states, "I presume that a majority still do not know that the only country that has used nuclear weapons in a war is their own." Obviously he is speaking of us when he talks. I remember a few years back hearing of a study that asked random citizens where New Mexico was located and a large percentage didn't even know it was a state. Mexico is down south.
Whether you believe his political conclusions and support his liberal viewpoints or not, it is a very interesting read. How can we as the people be opposed or support a war in Iraq when most of us can't even find it on a map. Makes you wonder what they are teaching in our schools and who exactly is not getting left behind. One thing is for sure, Obama is black and he was elected President. That is a huge move in the right direction to unite our country, now if we can only figure out what this Congress thing is that everyone keeps talking about and who controls it we might be in business.
I would consider this book a must read for everyone and after you are done you will most likely subscribe to that newspaper you have long since given up on. The internet is a wonderful tool but we seem to be losing touch with what our nation is about. Electronics be damned, I can't understand how that little hanging chad didn't get punched all the way through to begin with.
May 21, 2013
I really believed I'd like this book but I didn't find that the case. I gave it a rating of two to two and a half. The topic it discussed is an important issue but it deserved a more thorough examination. When I received my copy I was surprised by how short it was, which by itself isn't a problem. I did however find some of the points Shenkman made somewhat repetitive. I found the most interesting parts to be where he gave anecdotes from past presidents campaigns, administrations and congress. Though he tried for a nonpartisan assessment he fell short of it as many of these books do.
There are chapters titled: "Are Voter's Irrational?, The Importance of Myths, The Power of Television," and my favorite "We Can't Even Talk About How Stupid We Are." I would argue we talk too much about how stupid one group or another is while never getting around to trying to solve any underlying problems. This book doesn't offer any solutions either. The final chapter titled "Hope" includes this statement, "I find the Internet promising, I find blogging promising, where they may lead is anybody's guess." Really not too much hope that I was able to find in this chapter. If our politicians are stupid does that make the public stupider? No idea. Thank goodness stupid isn't terminal, it isn't Rick, right?
I still preferred Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?" as far as statistics and discussion about why the voters consistently vote against their own best interests. Though "Kansas" had some problems too, it was more informative.
If you really want to address the issue of how stupid we are (voting aside) I would recommend a book by Ed Hirsch, Jr. titled "Cultural Literacy- What Every American Needs To Know." It's from 1987 but if you can find a copy it's good. I suppose there might be a few outdated statements in it, but the information, anecdotes and statistics were both fascinating and disturbing. Hirsch finds our educational system at fault and does offer some thoughts on solutions. I don't know why this book wasn't updated for 2000, I wish it was. It appears from the current crop of books that we haven't gotten any smarter since 1987.
Again I'm not unhappy that I read Shenkman's book, I just had much higher expectations for it's content than I felt the book delivered.
There are chapters titled: "Are Voter's Irrational?, The Importance of Myths, The Power of Television," and my favorite "We Can't Even Talk About How Stupid We Are." I would argue we talk too much about how stupid one group or another is while never getting around to trying to solve any underlying problems. This book doesn't offer any solutions either. The final chapter titled "Hope" includes this statement, "I find the Internet promising, I find blogging promising, where they may lead is anybody's guess." Really not too much hope that I was able to find in this chapter. If our politicians are stupid does that make the public stupider? No idea. Thank goodness stupid isn't terminal, it isn't Rick, right?
I still preferred Thomas Frank's book "What's The Matter With Kansas?" as far as statistics and discussion about why the voters consistently vote against their own best interests. Though "Kansas" had some problems too, it was more informative.
If you really want to address the issue of how stupid we are (voting aside) I would recommend a book by Ed Hirsch, Jr. titled "Cultural Literacy- What Every American Needs To Know." It's from 1987 but if you can find a copy it's good. I suppose there might be a few outdated statements in it, but the information, anecdotes and statistics were both fascinating and disturbing. Hirsch finds our educational system at fault and does offer some thoughts on solutions. I don't know why this book wasn't updated for 2000, I wish it was. It appears from the current crop of books that we haven't gotten any smarter since 1987.
Again I'm not unhappy that I read Shenkman's book, I just had much higher expectations for it's content than I felt the book delivered.
December 5, 2009
What I found most interesting in this book was how the author spent the entire book describing how stupid and uninformed American’s are and finished off with a chapter demonstrating his own stupidity.
Toward the end of the book he wrote of how a slide show from Al Gore convinced him of our dire situation. This was followed by a description of how uninformed Americans become susceptible to propaganda. You don’t have to be a global warming denier to recognize propaganda in Al Gore’s books, talks, and any slide show he is likely to present. You only have to be well informed about global warming. Since the author obviously believes this is one of the great issues of our time, it is ironic he is so uninformed that he can be easily duped by Al Gore. The authors rants are like the pot calling the kettle black. There were other examples of his biases interfering with his ability to make informed statementss, but this was the most blatant.
Aside from the ironic ending, he made one extremely good suggestion. It would be nice if polls would indicate how informed the public is on a topic whenever they take a poll. I thought of one current example which the left leaning author would never think of. First, ask what percentage of the public is aware that the proposed health care legislation would result in an overall increase in health care spending and increase in existing health insurance premiums. Let’s suppose that is 20%. Then ask that 20% if they approve or disapprove of the proposed legislation. I suspect the result would not be to the author’s liking.
The condescending attitude toward “the people” is offensive when made by someone with such a closed mind. He tries to appear fair and open minded by criticizing the substance of those he disagrees with and then counters with criticisms of style for those he agrees with. This shouldn’t fool anyone. A better book, with more substantive criticism of “the public” is Bryan Caplan’s, The Myth of the Rational Voter.
Toward the end of the book he wrote of how a slide show from Al Gore convinced him of our dire situation. This was followed by a description of how uninformed Americans become susceptible to propaganda. You don’t have to be a global warming denier to recognize propaganda in Al Gore’s books, talks, and any slide show he is likely to present. You only have to be well informed about global warming. Since the author obviously believes this is one of the great issues of our time, it is ironic he is so uninformed that he can be easily duped by Al Gore. The authors rants are like the pot calling the kettle black. There were other examples of his biases interfering with his ability to make informed statementss, but this was the most blatant.
Aside from the ironic ending, he made one extremely good suggestion. It would be nice if polls would indicate how informed the public is on a topic whenever they take a poll. I thought of one current example which the left leaning author would never think of. First, ask what percentage of the public is aware that the proposed health care legislation would result in an overall increase in health care spending and increase in existing health insurance premiums. Let’s suppose that is 20%. Then ask that 20% if they approve or disapprove of the proposed legislation. I suspect the result would not be to the author’s liking.
The condescending attitude toward “the people” is offensive when made by someone with such a closed mind. He tries to appear fair and open minded by criticizing the substance of those he disagrees with and then counters with criticisms of style for those he agrees with. This shouldn’t fool anyone. A better book, with more substantive criticism of “the public” is Bryan Caplan’s, The Myth of the Rational Voter.
September 15, 2008
Really, I would probably give this book 2 1/2 stars. I had mixed feelings about this book pretty much the entire time I was reading it. At some points, I found the whole thing to be completely insulting and sort of elitist (but then, I would remind myself that the title of the book is Just How Stupid Are We?, and wasn't quite as offended). Other points I found really interesting. I really found the section of the perpetuation of certain American "myths" to be interesting, because I had never thought of that before, but it is true, even today. I think a lot of politicians still use these myths (for example, the war hero myth and the working-my-way-up-from-the-bottom myth) in order to play to the sympathies of the voters. The most disappointing part of the book for me was the last section, the Coda. Why is it that lately in some nonfiction books authors feel that they need to explain how they would fix the problem? Especially when their solutions are completely implausible? Shenkman's idea of requiring all college students to take a civics class is a nice idea, but I got really confused when he started talking about how all college students should be required to take a civics test before they graduated, and the whole thing just seemed really convoluted to me. Don't get me wrong, I think that people definitely do need to understand how our government works a little better than they currently do, but I'm not sure this would be the best way. This section sort of reads like he just thought up his ideal scenario without any regard for how implementing it would actually work. And then the book just sort of ends. It was weird and anticlimactic. It reminded me of a lot of student papers I read, where they realized that they had reached the bottom of page five, and just wrapped it up as quickly as possible.
Overall, I did learn a lot from this book, but there were definitely certain things that dampened my enthusiasm.
Overall, I did learn a lot from this book, but there were definitely certain things that dampened my enthusiasm.
March 9, 2009
We're quite dumb, as it turns out. Shenkman trots out an impressive array of facts and figures to underscore the fact that Vox Populi is largely meaningless when the populi's vox is ill-informed. Of course, this is an old argument, as far as I know--Socrates and Aristotle were largely declaiming the general population's ignorance while democracy was still in its swaddling clothes. I know that, as I roll my eyes upon learning that my journalism students complain about having to follow the Iraq war and Obama's fiscal policy, and as I waste time in class explaining common historical references so that a few lines of Shakespeare, or Steinbeck, or an essay in Harper's magazine takes meaning ("Why can't they just use The Simpsons?" one student complained once. "They've got plenty of references"), my eye-rolling and irritation is generations old. Nothing new under the sun. The tree of man was never quiet. So my students don't know how many senators are in the Senate. Did I at their age? Did I have any idea how a bill became a law, or where the Persian Gulf was, or any of that? Who am I to criticize?
The one main difference (and Shenkman does not spell this out, though he comes close) is attitude: I was embarassed by my ignorane, and eventually took the trouble to try and rectify it. Today's generation, while having access to more information than anyone ever would have thought possible, is adamant and assertive about its ignorance. They think many matters divorced from their immediate surroundings are immaterial. And it's not just the 18 to 34 year old audience he takes to task.
So, reading this book was like one long validation of all the contempt I harbor, however ill-advised, for the dumbing-down so easy to find these days. His book is one long I-told-you-so. Short on solution, long on pronouncement. Now I'm depressed. Next up: a deconstruction of the modern media.
The one main difference (and Shenkman does not spell this out, though he comes close) is attitude: I was embarassed by my ignorane, and eventually took the trouble to try and rectify it. Today's generation, while having access to more information than anyone ever would have thought possible, is adamant and assertive about its ignorance. They think many matters divorced from their immediate surroundings are immaterial. And it's not just the 18 to 34 year old audience he takes to task.
So, reading this book was like one long validation of all the contempt I harbor, however ill-advised, for the dumbing-down so easy to find these days. His book is one long I-told-you-so. Short on solution, long on pronouncement. Now I'm depressed. Next up: a deconstruction of the modern media.
August 31, 2016
Very catchy, easy read. I liked many of the author's points, he really feels that so much is being overlooked and I agree.
I liked Margie's review (and in this case, I too am guilty of confirmation bias):
"I picked this up because the title resonated with my beliefs about American voters (this is called confirmation bias). I was surprised to find that confirmation bias is not one of the ways in which Shenkman thinks we're stupid.
He outlines five ways in which he thinks we're stupid (and by we, I don't mean to imply that he's talking down to other people; he's talking about all of us). First, there's gross ignorance. Second, negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information. Third, wooden-headedness: The inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Then shortsightedness, and finally bone-headedness: susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
His argument rings true, and is also fairly depressing. He notes, "Anybody can have an opinion about killer whales or a president's sex life. But it takes knowledge and reflection to reach a considered opinion about the budget deficit or national security. Result: we largely skip theses subjects, focusing as a nation on ephemera instead."
He suggests that an antidote is to increase the amount of time spent on politics and civics in both high school and college. Seems highly unlikely to me.
I'll close with a quote from Adlai Stevenson, who initially resisted running television ads. "I don't think the American people want politics and the presidency to become the plaything of the high-pressure men, of the ghostwriters, of the public relations men. I think they will be shocked by such contempt for the intelligence of the American people. This isn't soap opera, this isn't Ivory Soap versus Palmolive."
Oh, how the mighty have fallen!"
I liked Margie's review (and in this case, I too am guilty of confirmation bias):
"I picked this up because the title resonated with my beliefs about American voters (this is called confirmation bias). I was surprised to find that confirmation bias is not one of the ways in which Shenkman thinks we're stupid.
He outlines five ways in which he thinks we're stupid (and by we, I don't mean to imply that he's talking down to other people; he's talking about all of us). First, there's gross ignorance. Second, negligence: the disinclination to seek reliable sources of information. Third, wooden-headedness: The inclination to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Then shortsightedness, and finally bone-headedness: susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.
His argument rings true, and is also fairly depressing. He notes, "Anybody can have an opinion about killer whales or a president's sex life. But it takes knowledge and reflection to reach a considered opinion about the budget deficit or national security. Result: we largely skip theses subjects, focusing as a nation on ephemera instead."
He suggests that an antidote is to increase the amount of time spent on politics and civics in both high school and college. Seems highly unlikely to me.
I'll close with a quote from Adlai Stevenson, who initially resisted running television ads. "I don't think the American people want politics and the presidency to become the plaything of the high-pressure men, of the ghostwriters, of the public relations men. I think they will be shocked by such contempt for the intelligence of the American people. This isn't soap opera, this isn't Ivory Soap versus Palmolive."
Oh, how the mighty have fallen!"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 107 reviews