Don't blame me, I voted for Fenty

[Anonymous]

Also, I shouldn't have to point out the fallacy involved in the chain of argument:

Uneducated folks, some percentage of whom voted for wining Candidate A, are more susceptible to demagoguery. But I also voted for Candidate A and have a PhD. Therefore uneducated folks are not more susceptible to demagoguery.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not a media figure, or a politician, and this is an anonymous forum, so I don't have to bray the usual platitudes about the "noble judgement of the American voter." Most voters know nothing about the issues. In fact, they have trouble identifying any particular issue. Most can't define what an "issue" is. Generally speaking, the American electorate reacts like an aomeba to political stimulus. Uneducated voters more so than others. Sorry if that seems pessimistic.

I don't think the issue here is one of education, but of information. I would agree with most of what you say if you referred to "uninformed" rather than "uneducated" voters. Or, I actually prefer the phrase "low information voter". I know plenty of holders of advanced degrees that don't know squat about local politics. I also have met the occasional blue collar worker who has volunteered in numerous campaigns and can recite detailed trivia concerning the most obscure of political figures.

Fenty won every precinct when he won the office. So, a lot of the low information voters that elected him must have voted against him the second time. They must have been right at least once, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not a media figure, or a politician, and this is an anonymous forum, so I don't have to bray the usual platitudes about the "noble judgement of the American voter." Most voters know nothing about the issues. In fact, they have trouble identifying any particular issue. Most can't define what an "issue" is. Generally speaking, the American electorate reacts like an aomeba to political stimulus. Uneducated voters more so than others. Sorry if that seems pessimistic.

I don't think the issue here is one of education, but of information. I would agree with most of what you say if you referred to "uninformed" rather than "uneducated" voters. Or, I actually prefer the phrase "low information voter". I know plenty of holders of advanced degrees that don't know squat about local politics. I also have met the occasional blue collar worker who has volunteered in numerous campaigns and can recite detailed trivia concerning the most obscure of political figures.

I certainly don't disagree with you that well-educated voters can't also be highly susceptible to demagoguery, or that poor people are incapable of informing themselves. I was just pointing out that it's somewhat less likely. When you have zero leisure time and are working two jobs, you're not going to be spending much time reading pithy news analyses in the New Yorker.

Fenty won every precinct when he won the office. So, a lot of the low information voters that elected him must have voted against him the second time. They must have been right at least once, don't you think?

Absolutely, which is why I mentioned all the glad-handing he did the first time--surely you remember his much-touted "energy" on the campaign trail? Everyone loved him! He knocked on every door in the city! What a great mayor he'll be!

Once he got into office, he couldn't be bothered with the retail politics. People want smoke blown up their asses; even a voter who knows nothing else about anything knows when their ass is being insufficiently kissed. (And, no, I'm not one of those suburban douchebags who think DC voters are unique in this regard. It's a universal phenomenon, as old as the first glimmer of self-rule, and in every corner of the globe.)

[Anonymous]

A classic read on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html

http://howstupidblog.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Precisely. He won the first one by going out and shaking hands. He could've won a second term by visiting The Churches and taking a few hand-dancing classes. Unfortunately, the uneducated are particularly susceptible to demagoguery. DC has a *lot* of uneducated voters.

So, voting for a guy whose hand you shook is okay, despite the fact that you know nothing more about him. But, voting for a guy that came to your church or you saw hand-dancing is an act of an uneducated person?

Guess I'm an uneducated person. Damn! How did I get that Phd???!!!
I didn't know that valid criticism of Michelle Rhee for her genuine mistakes was demagoguery either. Boy am I stupid!

Not stupid, but a bit slow in catching Jeff's irony, perhaps?

No, agreeing with Jeff, who was arguing with the prior pp! Please read more carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I shouldn't have to point out the fallacy involved in the chain of argument:

Uneducated folks, some percentage of whom voted for wining Candidate A, are more susceptible to demagoguery. But I also voted for Candidate A and have a PhD. Therefore uneducated folks are not more susceptible to demagoguery.

No, merely pointing out that educated people also voted for Gray. You can blame it all you want on stupid people falling for demagoguery but how is it that some very smart well-educated people also voted for Gray after carefully thinking about the issues? Which is also what I did the first time around when I voted for Fenty. I thought hard about the issues when choosing him over Cropp. Then when he got into office, he made major mistakes. I didn't give a damn whether he shook my hand or whether he fought with the council over baseball tickets or whether he's a nice guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I shouldn't have to point out the fallacy involved in the chain of argument:

Uneducated folks, some percentage of whom voted for wining Candidate A, are more susceptible to demagoguery. But I also voted for Candidate A and have a PhD. Therefore uneducated folks are not more susceptible to demagoguery.

No, merely pointing out that educated people also voted for Gray. You can blame it all you want on stupid people falling for demagoguery but how is it that some very smart well-educated people also voted for Gray after carefully thinking about the issues? Which is also what I did the first time around when I voted for Fenty. I thought hard about the issues when choosing him over Cropp. Then when he got into office, he made major mistakes. I didn't give a damn whether he shook my hand or whether he fought with the council over baseball tickets or whether he's a nice guy.

It never ceases to amaze me that few people can talk about larger political dynamics without making it all about me, me, me. Look, I'm glad you've educated yourself about the issues. Congratulations on your PhD. The fact that the uneducated are generally less-informed, and therefore more susceptible to demagoguery is fairly uncontroversial. Regardless of the merits of Gray or Fenty, if generic Candidate A is more effective at waving the bloody shirt than generic Candidate B, he or she will tend to win elections where low-information voters prevail.

Just to review, I'm not arguing that Fenty was more deserving than Gray. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Gray was exactly the tonic that DC needed, and that Fenty deserved to lose. I'm simply arguing that Gray won because he played to The Churches and cultural biases. The counter-argument seems to be that Gray won because the level-headed voters of DC made a dry and technocratic analysis of the various candidates, and found Gray's policies to be the more attractive. Call me a cynic, but that seems laughably naive to me; and most modern PoliSci research supports me on this. The fact that well-informed people of goodwill chose Gray (or Obama, or George W Bush, for that matter) is a statistical blip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, I shouldn't have to point out the fallacy involved in the chain of argument:

Uneducated folks, some percentage of whom voted for wining Candidate A, are more susceptible to demagoguery. But I also voted for Candidate A and have a PhD. Therefore uneducated folks are not more susceptible to demagoguery.

No, merely pointing out that educated people also voted for Gray. You can blame it all you want on stupid people falling for demagoguery but how is it that some very smart well-educated people also voted for Gray after carefully thinking about the issues? Which is also what I did the first time around when I voted for Fenty. I thought hard about the issues when choosing him over Cropp. Then when he got into office, he made major mistakes. I didn't give a damn whether he shook my hand or whether he fought with the council over baseball tickets or whether he's a nice guy.

It never ceases to amaze me that few people can talk about larger political dynamics without making it all about me, me, me. Look, I'm glad you've educated yourself about the issues. Congratulations on your PhD. The fact that the uneducated are generally less-informed, and therefore more susceptible to demagoguery is fairly uncontroversial. Regardless of the merits of Gray or Fenty, if generic Candidate A is more effective at waving the bloody shirt than generic Candidate B, he or she will tend to win elections where low-information voters prevail.

Just to review, I'm not arguing that Fenty was more deserving than Gray. For the sake of argument, I'll concede that Gray was exactly the tonic that DC needed, and that Fenty deserved to lose. I'm simply arguing that Gray won because he played to The Churches and cultural biases. The counter-argument seems to be that Gray won because the level-headed voters of DC made a dry and technocratic analysis of the various candidates, and found Gray's policies to be the more attractive. Call me a cynic, but that seems laughably naive to me; and most modern PoliSci research supports me on this. The fact that well-informed people of goodwill chose Gray (or Obama, or George W Bush, for that matter) is a statistical blip.

I like a lot of what you've written here but I will disagree with you on the bloody shirt metaphor. Fenty's supporters waved a huge bloody shirt (Marion Barry returning, city services falling into the abyss, back to the 80s) which was why it made it so easy to vote for Gray. As a matter of fact, a fair number of Fenty supporters were actually treating us like we were all morons and if they hadn't maybe their guy would be mayor today. Sorry, but when your hand-picked chancellor screws up the budget and actually makes some schools worse than they were before because she has no experience managing a large city agency, it doesn't take someone with a PhD to see that you blew it. A person with a high school education can see that too. But of course go ahead and dismiss them as being victims of demagoguery. They're uneducated so they couldn't possibly have a valid opinion; it must all be cultural bias.

Which of course is why all the people with high school educations are clamoring to get rid of Cathy Lanier -- oh wait a minute, they're not!