Political Scientist Charles Franklin Slams Voters as 'Pretty Damn Stupid'

This is interesting.



I wrote the other day about Ohio State communications professors Erik Nisbet and Kelly Garrett. These two have published some shoddy research on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. The authors not only used junk "fact check" resources, but didn't report on the findings of experts on Islam. And I found the research at The Monkey Cage, widely considered one of the top political science blogs. And noted there at the comments:

No wonder many Americans are disinclined to believe the 'corrective' statements academics serve up, when so often such statements are inaccurate and slanted.

That's pretty good — and apropos to my growing disenchantment with academic political science. And now Ann Althouse is directly over the target with a couple of posts on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin, seen below (and at his faculty homepage):

Ann's main entry is here: "A Madison liberal struggles to understand the 2010 elections and runs to the classic liberal explanation: The people are stupid." The post links to a news article at a local paper, The Isthmus, "Wisconsin Election Proves the Power of Bad Ideas." Then Ann links again to an essay this morning covering the story, from Byron York, "Top political scientist: U.S. voters are 'pretty damn stupid'." (Also at Memeorandum.)



Ann updates with a comment at the thread from Professor Franklin, who regrets shooting from the hip, and then distrances himself from the unwashed commentary at The Isthmus:

... I said it and have no complaint that it was quoted when I knew I was speaking to journalists.



But I wish what I said next had also been quoted. I went on to say that despite not knowing the details of Johnson's policy positions, the voters did NOT make a mistake in choosing Johnson as the more conservative candidate and certain to be more favorable to cutting government. That was indeed the correct connection by an angry electorate, even if the details were quite vague.



Voter's often act on little information and can be astonishingly unaware of things one might consider "facts". A post-election Pew poll finds less than half (46%) know the GOP won only the House but not the Senate. And at times voters appear to vote for candidates who are likely to take positions at odds with the voter's interests.



But in the Johnson-Feingold race, I think despite lack of details about Johnson, a majority of Wisconsin voter's picked the guy they wanted, and for basically the right reason. Dems may be astonished at the rejection of a favorite son, but in making this choice I think voter's properly expressed their preferences and matched them to the right candidate.

And that's an academic dodge.



The voters voted correctly given their ideology preferences, but with their "lack of details" those ideological preferences are indeed "pretty damn stupid."



Of course, for political scientists, "facts" never get in the way of the approved academic narrative. Confer, for just one example: "Paula McClain and the 'Duke 88'."