Francisco Jose de Goya- The Sleep Of Reason Produces Monsters | Knowing Less Than We Think | Public Square Magazine | Effects From The Lack Of Political Knowledge In America

Knowing Less Than We Think

In discussing civic engagement and political participation, it’s often taken for granted that Americans have a basic knowledge of what’s going on. Do they?
This is the first in a series of articles by Walker A. Wright exploring the extent of political ignorance in America, along with its contributors and implications. 

In a 2012 Saturday Night Live sketch, a political ad parody “paid for” by “Low-Information Voters of America” showcased a handful of America’s “undecided voters” asking questions like, “What are the names of the two people running?” or “Who is the president right now? Is he or she running?” What makes this particular skit humorous is how much it reflects reality.

According to political scientists Christopher Achens and Larry Bartels, there is a “folk theory” of democracy that is widespread in American culture. This theory paints average citizens as engaged, well-informed participants in the political process, deliberating policies and selecting leaders who represent their well-reasoned preferences. “Unfortunately,” write Achens and Bartels, “while the folk theory of democracy has flourished as an ideal, its credibility has been severely undercut by a growing body of scientific evidence. . . . That evidence demonstrates that the great majority of citizens pay little attention to politics.” 

With 2020 being a presidential election year, I want to kick off the New Year with a douse of cold water on the overly enthusiastic democratic flame. By exploring the extent of political ignorance among the American electorate, the incentives that drive this ignorance, and the policy outcomes of this ignorance, I hope to help instill some humility into this year’s political participation. 

Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter define political knowledge as “the range of factual information about politics that is stored in long-term memory.” Drawing on Carpini and Keeter’s work, Achens and Bartels display the ignorance of the typical American on these kinds of questions over the years. For example, in 1952, “only 44% of Americans could name at least one branch of government. In 1972, only 22% knew something about Watergate. In 1985, only 59% knew whether their own state’s governor was a Democrat or a Republican. In 1986, only 49% knew which one nation in the world had used nuclear weapons.”

Recent survey evidence continues to support these findings. A 2018 poll found that 67% of Americans cannot name all three branches of government. Another poll found that a sizable minority (39%) of Americans think or are not sure if low GDP is better for the country than high GDP. The Woodrow Wilson Foundation found that only one in three Americans can pass the U.S. Citizenship Test, with less than half the population of all but one state (Vermont) being able to pass it. A 2014 Barna survey found that 84% of Americans are unaware that extreme poverty worldwide has decreased by more than half in the past three decades. 67% said they thought global poverty was actually increasing. The late statistician Hans Rosling often tested his audience’s knowledge of the state of the world. Overall, he found that only 5% of Americans could answer a multiple-choice question about global poverty correctly, which was worse than chimpanzees picking at random.

This ignorance not only extends to basic facts about government, politics, and the economy, but to party makeup as well. A 2018 study found that “Republicans, Democrats, and independents, all overestimate the share of party-stereotypical groups in both the major parties.” For example, respondents thought 39.3% of Democrats belonged to a labor union (actual: 10.5%), 38.2% of Republicans earned over $250,000 a year (actual: 2.2%), and 31.7% of Democrats were gay, lesbian, or bisexual (actual: 6.3%).

“Political knowledge is distributed unevenly. Most people know little, but some people know a lot, and some people know nothing.”

Legal scholar Ilya Somin’s work on this subject is based on a thorough review of both the academic literature as well as a sweeping array of public surveys, including (but not limited to) the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, Pew Research Center, Bloomberg, Public Policy Research Institute, Reason-Rupe, and American National Election Studies. Noting that voter ignorance is not merely in regards to “specific policy issues but about the basic structure of government and how it operates,” he concludes, “Extensive evidence suggests that most Americans have little political knowledge. That ignorance covers knowledge of specific issues, knowledge of political leaders and parties, and knowledge of political institutions. . . . Moreover, much of the widespread ignorance relate to fairly basic issues about the politicians, parties, issues, and the structure of politics.”

Using the 1996 Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy (SAEE), GMU economist Bryan Caplan compares the average belief of the general public on economic issues and the average belief of Ph.D. economists after controlling for things like family income, job security, race, gender, age, and income growth. Caplan explores just how much answers of economists differ from the general public on most economic issues. For example, the general public is far more concerned about the supposed negative economic effects of taxes, foreign aid, immigration, business tax breaks, the number of people on welfare, affirmative action, business profits, executive compensation, technology in the workplace, job outsourcing, and corporate downsizing. Caplan’s controls and comparisons confirm the extent to which (1) economic information and education changes one’s views about economic issues and (2) the general public is lacking in these qualifications. This gap between economists and the general public is further confirmed by a 2013 study drawing on the Economic Expert Panel (a panel of top economists from major U.S. research universities) and Financial Trust Index (polls average Americans on their trust in private financial institutions)—both from the University of Chicago. The authors of that study find that, “[o]n average, the percentage of agreement with a statement differs 35 percentage points between the two groups.” 

Relying on data from the American National Election Studies, Georgetown political philosopher Jason Brennan notes, “Political knowledge is distributed unevenly. Most people know little, but some people know a lot, and some people know nothing.” Based on that perhaps more obvious reality, he proposes dividing citizens into four groups: “putting the 25 percent most knowledgeable citizens into the top quartile and the 25 percent least knowledgeable into the bottom quartile.” Based on this, some interesting patterns emerge: 

93.4 percent of people in the top quartile, but only 13.1 percent of people in the bottom quartile, know that Republicans tend to be more conservative than Democrats. Among people in the lowest knowledge quartile, only 12.2 percent and 9.7 percent knew which party controlled the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. The bottom 25 percent of citizens does worse than a coin flip when it comes to political knowledge—they are systematically in error.

Even then, Brennan goes on to argue that public polls actually overstate how much Americans really know about politics and policy. The first reason is because these polls “usually take the form of a multiple-choice test. When many citizens do not know the answer to a question, they guess. Some of them get lucky, and the surveys mark them as knowledgeable.” It’s also the case that these polls “count a citizen as knowledgeable if they know that we spend more on social security than defense,” but they typically don’t delve into any real nuances, such as checking if people “know how much more we spend.” Finally, the questions themselves are almost always “easily verifiable facts” — not questions that “require specialized social scientific knowledge” — and yet Americans still cannot answer them. Unfortunately, greater question complexity is associated with greater ignorance. According to Carpini and Keeter, the more detail required by the question, the less likely the public is to answer correctly.

Philosopher Michael Huemer notes that “popular wisdom often praises” political participation. However, this is likely unwarranted:

The clear evidence of human ignorance and irrationality in the political arena poses a serious challenge to the popular wisdom. Lacking awareness of basic facts of their political systems, to say nothing of the more sophisticated knowledge that would be needed to reliably resolve controversial political issues, most citizens can do no more than guess when they enter the voting booth. . . . [T]he attempt to influence public policy through such arbitrary guesses is unjust and socially irresponsible.

Voting imposes costs on others by wielding what is essentially government’s legalized monopoly on the use of coercive force. This makes being informed about these costs all the more important. 

Of course, people are busy. We have jobs, families, and other interests that require our focus. It is no surprise that we do not spend the inordinate amount of time and energy on politics that is required to be “informed citizens.” In fact, our democratic structure may actually incentivize this widespread political ignorance (something I will touch on in a future essay). 

But this is exactly the point. Before diving headlong into the inevitable political mudslinging this year, we should try practicing a little intellectual humility first. If the social science above is any indication, we likely know less than we think.

About the author

Walker Wright

Walker Wright is the director of programs at a Yale-based institute and has previously held academic program management roles at public policy organizations in Washington, DC. He is the author of "Nourishing the Roots: Seeking the Foundations of Latter-day Testimony" and has published in a variety of academic and popular outlets. He holds an MA in government from Johns Hopkins University and an MBA and BBA from the University of North Texas.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Kinda Pregnant, Kinda Forgettable, Mostly Raunchy

Amy Schumer is a mood.  About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved. She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it. “Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it.  In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman. She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant. She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant. There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them.  On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes.  The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience. If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating. But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off.  One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 2025.

Creating Jesus in Our Image

In the perennial debate about the carpenter from Nazareth, it’s worth asking: Are we seeking after who Jesus is revealed to be—or who we personally wish Him to be?