![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
let me set this straight
Nov. 15th, 2004 12:22 pmI would not claim that everyone who voted for Bush is stupid and uninformed. Some of them just have different values. For example, if you would directly benefit from lower taxes on capital gains, or you are fanatically "pro-life" (in the "anti-abortion" sense), then the decision to vote for Bush is neither stupid nor uninformed.
However, anyone who still believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or that he was having any luck producing WMDs during U.N. inspections, is uninformed. Even George Bush now admits that these claims aren't true.
Fact: people who believe the 9/11 fallacy and/or the WMD fallacy w.r.t. Iraq are far more likely to have voted for Bush. This makes sense, because if you believe either of these fallacies, then Bush's foreign policy makes a lot more sense. Once you know that these claims regarding Iraq have crumbled, it's much harder to make sense of our war in Iraq... unless you conclude that Bush is a fool, or a liar.
Fact: There is some positive correlation between being intelligent and being well-informed about current events. Smarter people absorb more information and make more connections; and they are more likely to seek out more high-brow "serious" news sources. The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly use big words, which attracts some readers and repels others-- based on verbal IQ, I'd hazard to guess.
This isn't about all Bush voters. And it isn't about whether the type of intelligence required to rebuild a truck engine is just as valid as the type of intelligence tested by the SAT. It's just about the complete mind-blowing idiocy of how we went to war in Iraq-- and astonishment that such a big slice of the American people seem to like having that kind of idiocy in power.
However, anyone who still believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or that he was having any luck producing WMDs during U.N. inspections, is uninformed. Even George Bush now admits that these claims aren't true.
Fact: people who believe the 9/11 fallacy and/or the WMD fallacy w.r.t. Iraq are far more likely to have voted for Bush. This makes sense, because if you believe either of these fallacies, then Bush's foreign policy makes a lot more sense. Once you know that these claims regarding Iraq have crumbled, it's much harder to make sense of our war in Iraq... unless you conclude that Bush is a fool, or a liar.
Fact: There is some positive correlation between being intelligent and being well-informed about current events. Smarter people absorb more information and make more connections; and they are more likely to seek out more high-brow "serious" news sources. The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly use big words, which attracts some readers and repels others-- based on verbal IQ, I'd hazard to guess.
This isn't about all Bush voters. And it isn't about whether the type of intelligence required to rebuild a truck engine is just as valid as the type of intelligence tested by the SAT. It's just about the complete mind-blowing idiocy of how we went to war in Iraq-- and astonishment that such a big slice of the American people seem to like having that kind of idiocy in power.
