The good folks at The Daily, the new iPad-only publication from Rupert Murdoch, asked me to write an item, and so I offered these thoughts about the increasingly ubiquitous term “Sheeple.”
What’s striking about the knee-jerk dismissal of the majority of voters as bleating sheep is that if you believe this assessment, then you must believe that somehow in the course of the elections of 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010, the same electorate somehow veered between wise and stupid, sharp-minded and easily manipulated, and even extremes of nobility and racism.
If you’re on the right, you think the electorate wisely found John Kerry wanting as a wartime leader in 2004, suddenly forgot all about that issue in 2006, became putty in the hands of a smooth-talking Pied Piper in 2008 and then somehow snapped back to reality and sober judgment in 2010. If you’re on the left, the country was swept up by wartime jingoistic fervor in 2004, suddenly recognized the GOP culture of corruption in 2006, ushered in a bright new era of hope and change in 2008 and then suddenly reverted to a bunch of cranky, selfish hicks who refuse to contribute to the common good in 2010.
Somehow the electorate only seems stupid when they vote for our opponents.
While few of us have too hard a time running into voters we believe are stupid, it’s probably politically unhealthy to believe that voters in general or as a whole are stupid. Think about the dumbing-down of rhetoric, the oversimplification of issues, the implausible dodges and spins one reverts to when one thinks the audience is stupid. Yet talking down to voters rarely works, because it’s hard for a candidate to hide an arrogant belief that he’s so much smarter and better than those he seeks to lead. What’s more, when a candidate tries to talk down to an audience instead of explaining things as he would to people as sophisticated as he sees himself, the lack of authenticity shows. A lot of voters can tell when someone’s talking down to them, and unsurprisingly, they don’t like it.
Have a little faith in voters, candidates.
On a related note, go over to Bench memos, and have a look at today's post regarding Goodwin Liu and the case he'll hear next week: Who has standing in federal court to defend a state constitutional amendment, namely Prop 8.
Liu's comments are intriguing. He seems to think that gay marriage is a fundamental right (but that's an issue), and that the mere sheeple (as you put it) are not competent to decide this kind of issue by referendum; the nobility (that is, gubmint) shall decide. Of course, California is overwhelmingly Democratic these days, nobility-wise.
We ask, can Liu's remark be interpreted as a defense of DOMA, seeing as how that was a "deliberative" act, as he puts it? Can Liu's remark be interpreted as a defense of traditional marriage in those states where the legislature has so voted? I doubt it!
Some say that the people are gradually accepting same-gender marriage. Maybe, maybe not; I don't believe one recent poll. But if so, it is gradual. Compare that to the wild swings produced when politicians have been elected in recent years, as the blogger notes. Are we to suppose that monumental change, enacted by politicians who are shifted with the tides, somehow is superior to the gradual - Shall I say deliberate? - views of the people?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Jim, it's not the majority of voters, it's just enough to be swing voters. You must admit that the appeal to the "muddled middle" is where election strategists aim a lot of their effort. If they can be swayed from election to election, then what other epithet might you select? (Yes, you can argue that no epithet at all should be used.)
Also, "sheeple" shouldn't mean that the people are stupid - it means that they are looking for someone to protect them and herd them and tell them what to do and keep them safe. And, sadly, a goodly portion of our population is tending this way. It is a term of derision (at least for those I have heard use it on the right) pointing to their loss of the American can-do attitude and self-confidence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem is that the sheeple are divided into two groups of roughly equal size, competing for the same political pasture.
Isn't it obvious? America is flocked up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about voters who ask why in the world did they create Israel in the Middle East for Jews, having no idea it was always a Jewish place?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have not a few friends and relatives who are not stupid, who are reasonably successful, but who are woefully uninformed about most things political. Frankly, it's because they don't see politics as germane to their daily lives.
What they do have is common sense, and appeals to that common sense will likely work. This is especially true for some who voted for Obama in 2008 and who now have buyer's remorse because they can see that Obama's policies have hurt them in the pocketbook.
For every John Stossel “gotcha” interview with morons on the streets of New York, my experience tells me you've got many more hard-working and serious people who, once informed, will vote their true interests, and not just because of slick advertising.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot necessarily stupid, but uninformed and lazy about it, which produces the same results.
20% of the electorate self-identify as "liberal"; 40% self-identify as "conservative." So liberals are the minority (somebody should tell the libs that whenever they talk about how public opinion is on their side).
It's the 40% of "moderates" who are the ignoramuses. Again, not necessarily stupid, but they don't know enough (or don't care enough) about the issues to even take a side, for Pete's sake. Wishy-washy, undecided, uninformed on the issues, and easily swayed. As the maxim says: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," and these 40% are the who elected Obama.
Even though this would never pass, I'm a great fan of the idea that you should be asked three simple questions before you vote:
1) How many members are in the House of Representatives?
2) How many members are in the Senate?
3) Who are the current President and Vice President?
Quite frankly, if you can't answer those 3 questions, you aren't INFORMED ENOUGH to vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI operate under the assumption that the vast majority of people are stupid. If Obama were enacting all of the same statist policies and unemployment were somehow at 4% he'd be wildly popular. Obviously this is a virtual impossibility given his policies but let's assume the .com bubble were occurring right now. People wouldn't care. The idea that he is somehow still around 40% is all you need to know about the intelligence of the American people.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRawhide: You have hit on something that has bugged me for years. Liberals talk approvingly of the Clinton economy and disapprovingly of the dot com bubble, as if those were two different things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesheeple, noun: target market for "the new iPad-only publication from Rupert Murdoch".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yet talking down to voters rarely works, because it’s hard for a candidate to hide an arrogant belief that he’s so much smarter and better than those he seeks to lead."
For one candidate it's not merely hard, but downright impossible, and so he is forced to drop the 'g' at the end of words and talk about "folks."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only person I've really ever heard consistently use this term is Michael Savage and he's been using it forever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBelief that average voters are too stupid, uninformed, or lazy to vote wisely is the world-view of socialism, not democracy. Democracy in America was established on the premise that the people as a whole will make wiser political decisions than the nobility or a dictator/king. At the risk of sounding ideological, declaring voters as unthinking is undemocratic and non-conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse