Kos has conducted a poll of self-identified Republicans, and it has confirmed his theory that most of them are insane. I think they're pretty nuts myself, but I have some problems with his methodology all the same. For example:
Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?Kos claims that this means "42 percent of Republicans aren't really patriotic...these traitors don't believe in democracy, in our nation's founding ideals, or in our flag." Perhaps this is a joke. If not, it seems like a bit of a stretch, especially since we don't know how many people answered "not sure" simply because they don't know what "secede" means. As someone who used to work in the business, I can say that drawing grandiose conclusions from noncommittal or uncomprehending answers is usually a bad idea.
Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19
Also, I suspect you could find left-leaning respondents, especially in California and the PNW, who wouldn't be entirely averse to secession, so I'm not convinced this is strictly a right-wing phenomenon.
Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?This question is badly conceived and written. Some people might answer "yes" simply because this is a basic point of cultural literacy. Since there's no follow-up question about whether evolution should be taught, I guess we're supposed to jump to the conclusion that learning what Genesis says is tantamount to rejecting science, or smashing the barrier between church and state, or whatever. Honestly, this isn't much better than the loaded poll questions Lou Dobbs used to post. I'd rather not see people on "my" side embracing these tactics.
Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8
Are marrigiages equal partnerships, or are men the leaders of their households?Interestingly, the option of female leadership is left out: either men are leaders, or men and women are equals. I'm hoping this is simply a matter of assuming a priori that all Republicans everywhere are much too regressive to consider women "leaders." Otherwise, it could be taken as evidence that the Left occasionally has its own blind spots when it comes to taking women seriously.
Men 13
Equal 76
Not Sure 11
This stuff irritates me. I've been known to call people names and caricature them and heap scorn on their heads. But I don't approve of using dubious statistics to give this abuse a pseudoscientific veneer. Outside of encouraging the sort of dehumanization that Kos objects to elsewhere, I really don't know what purpose this survey is supposed to serve.
And just for the record, I'm less worried about what Republicans believe than I am about the unexamined assumptions the right and left tend to share. The problem, as I see it, is that Americans agree on far too much.
But that's a rant for another day.
(Image via Media Matters.)
11 comments:
I am SO looking forward to that rant.
Cheers!
JzB
I had vague issues with that poll and you've put your finger on some of why.
The question about Genesis definitely struck a wrong chord. Me, I'm all for teaching the Bible, along with other religious books/beliefs, starting at young ages - as literature, part of our cultural heritages (a category that is expanding all the time) or just so people on game shows can answer a question without calling a friend. So if I had been asked that question as it was phrased I would have probably said yes, as well.
As the poll is apparently meant to support assertions made in his upcoming book, for which he had little actual evidence, it would definitely have been more effective with rigorously fair questions or at least fair interpretations of the results, I believe.
And I am looking forward to that rant, too.
Sorry, I'm not with you here.
Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
This isn't about the bible as literature, or about comparative religion, it's about teaching creationism.
Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29
I have no problem lumping the "not sures" in with the Yeses.
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes 42
No 36
Not Sure 22
Every "not sure" is a Glen Beck acolyte.
Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33
Kos: Not just a quarter of Republicans believe this ludicrous premise, but another third think it's a matter open to debate. How do you negotiate with a party whose rank and file are that divorced from reality?
There is no grey area here. Rank and file Republicans are fundamentally out of touch with reality.
I'm real worried about it. These ass holes vote.
Lo siento,
JzB
This isn't about the bible as literature, or about comparative religion, it's about teaching creationism.
In that case, why not simply ask "should public schools teach creationism?" or "should public schools teach students that God created the world, as described in the Bible?" Why phrase it so ambiguously?
Every "not sure" is a Glen Beck acolyte.
I'm not so sure. Have you ever called a few hundred Americans and asked them about current affairs? I have, and I have to say that you absolutely cannot underestimate public ignorance. For every two acolytes, there may've been at least one completely out-of-touch person for whom Kos' question amounted to push polling.
It really depends on who they're calling, I think. If it's totally random except for GOP self-ID, then I'd refrain from drawing strong conclusions about noncommittal answers (except inasmuch as the degree of ignorance I'm positing here would be a huge problem, too).
Rank and file Republicans are fundamentally out of touch with reality.
Of course they are. But we already knew this. Kos knew it before conducting the survey, which is probably why the questions took the form they did, which is the whole problem. We don't know whether or how the survey takers influenced the results, either.
It's been a long time since I was in this line of work, but I'd still bet I could come up with a survey of self-identified Democrats that'd make a fair amount of 'em look like idiots. It's really not that hard, especially since all of us are fundamentally out of touch with reality to some extent.
Again, I don't like sloppy polling no matter whose side is doing it. And I also don't much like the victim-blaming. This country is set up to churn out people like this, and although the GOP deserves a lot of blame they don't deserve all of it.
Nice to see you, Nanette!
So if I had been asked that question as it was phrased I would have probably said yes, as well.
I probably would've refused to answer. Normally, people conducting surveys are not allowed to interpret questions for the respondent, so if the question is leading or unclear, I simply skip it.
As the poll is apparently meant to support assertions made in his upcoming book, for which he had little actual evidence, it would definitely have been more effective with rigorously fair questions or at least fair interpretations of the results, I believe.
I agree. I think that even though this is an attack on the right, it ultimately reinforces the climate in which the right thrives.
Hi Phila! Good to see you, too, and thanks :)
I probably would've refused to answer. Normally, people conducting surveys are not allowed to interpret questions for the respondent, so if the question is leading or unclear, I simply skip it.
Well, I rarely get polled on anything, but when I do, I imagine they *wish* I would just not answer some questions because I put so many caveats on the answers that I wind up confusing the callers. And then they're like, "So... that's a yes? Or a no?" Because, of course, there is rarely room for nuance on polls, sigh.
Sorry to delete and post again, but I had to fix a blatant formatting error.
I probably would've refused to answer. Normally, people conducting surveys are not allowed to interpret questions for the respondent, so if the question is leading or unclear, I simply skip it.
Which further skews the results, and further calls into question any broad conclusions drawn from those results.
I still agree with Walt Kelly, that polling is "the buckshot use of the curved question."
On another topic, and maybe it's because I'm a Southerner and grew up on the cusp of the civil rights movement, so I still remember cries from my childhood of how the "South will rise again!" (God forbid!), but Kos's conclusion on the secession issue struck me as false for a wholly different reason.
Perhaps it is "unpatriotic" to consider secession a possibility, if not a viable option, but I'm not willing to cede quite that much ground to Lincoln's conclusion as to how to respond to the actual secession of several states in the 19th century. There is no interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court which declares that entry into the United States is irrevocable and hence unconstitutional. There is, in short, no rule of law on the issue (and how the court would enforce would be interesting, no?), and it wasn't settled as a matter of acquiescence to the social contract or order as expressed by an institution of government (the reason we are supposed to honor Supreme Court decisions, even when its Bush v. Gore).
No, the issue was settled by war, by might "making right." It was settled because one side defeated the other in a bloody conflict and forced them into recantation of what was a stupid idea (and one not as widely supported in the South as is commonly supposed; but that's another matter). My point has less to do with the correctness of the outcome (with which I don't quarrel) than the consequences of the tools used. Conflict doesn't reconcile disparate forces, it subdues one side in favor of the other. Which was the outcome of the Civil War; one side was subdued, and then brutalized (at least from the Southern perspective) in Reconstruction. (There was no Marshall Plan for the South, no rebuilding of the Southern economy as we did for Japan and Germany after WWII; that lesson had to wait for WWI to be our teacher.)
That secession is still considered an option, or a response, is more a product of American culture than of lack of "patriotism." It is certainly more a consequence of using might to establish right, and frankly, beating people up for their supposed lack of patriotism is just a milder variant of the effort to use power where persuasion seemingly fails.
And that effort presents more problems than it solves, IMHO.
Which further skews the results, and further calls into question any broad conclusions drawn from those results.
Exactly. Which is one reason I make a point of doing it.
Accurate phone polling requires a serious effort at neutrality, and a very precise use of language, and very well trained callers. Even then, eleven out of ten experts agree that the results should be taken with a grain of salt.
That secession is still considered an option, or a response, is more a product of American culture than of lack of "patriotism."
Excellent point.
It is certainly more a consequence of using might to establish right, and frankly, beating people up for their supposed lack of patriotism is just a milder variant of the effort to use power where persuasion seemingly fails.
Agreed.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on secession either way. In the seventies, it seemed like everyone was reading Ecotopia, and I don't know anyone who rejected the concept on the grounds that secession was inherently wrong. I certainly didn't.
Unrealistic, sure...but a lot of potentially positive things seem to be unrealistic in this country.
Anyway, I've heard people on the left talk about seceding from the Midwest or the South many, many times, and I'm sure you have too.
Obviously, they're all cowards.
If you're still here, RMJ, I've been meaning to mention that I can't seem to comment on your blog. Anything I type goes into the ether.
Not that my low-grade input is required over there, but someone with something worthwhile to say may be having the same problem.
That's excessively odd (that you can't post at Adventus).
I'll see what I can do about it. Thanks.
Post a Comment