Goldberg misidentifies the ‘mob of uninformed louts’

For all the conservative readers who’ve accused me of “elitism” because of my concerns about an uninformed electorate, I give you National Review’s Jonah Goldberg.

As a matter of principle, I oppose voting by ex-cons because voting should be harder, not easier — for everybody…. If you are having an intelligent conversation with somebody, is it enriched if a mob of uninformed louts, never mind ex-cons and rapists, barges in? People who want to make voting easier are in effect saying that those who previously didn’t care or know enough about the country to vote are exactly the kind of voters this country needs now.

This is absurd on any number of levels. My first reaction was noting the oddity of a conservative making an argument opposing ex-cons’ participation in the political process — the Bush/Cheney ticket, after all, is the first presidential ticket in American history to feature two candidates with criminal records.

More importantly, Kevin Drum explained why Goldberg, as usual, is wrong on the merits.

If you asked me to name the most fundamental rights of U.S. citizen, the absolute minimum core that we could have and still call ourselves America, I’d name three: freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, and the right to vote. The government should not be in the business of limiting any of these things except in the most extreme cases.

Felons who have paid their debt have paid their debt. Once they’ve served their time, their right to free speech and their right to a fair trial are restored, and I can’t think of any reason why their right to vote shouldn’t be too. If you’re a citizen, you should get to vote, period.

I couldn’t agree more. And yet, I still feel compelled to take on Goldberg’s dismissal of the “uninformed louts” interfering with his “intelligent conversation.” It’s a point that Goldberg clearly hasn’t thought through.

Indeed, Goldberg and the National Review should be embracing, not dismissing, “uninformed louts” — without them, their ideological cohorts would never win any elections.

Consider the overwhelming evidence. A Program on International Policy Attitudes poll from before the election showed that Bush voters knew dramatically less about current events than Kerry voters.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq’s new government (70%).

Kerry supporters were much more accurate in assessing their candidate’s positions on all these issues.

Another PIPA poll showed Republicans are terribly confused and misinformed about Iraq, WMD, and al Queda. Gallup discovered that nearly two-in-three Republicans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. The National Annenberg Election Survey showed Bush’s supporters didn’t know their candidate’s positions on a variety of key election issues. Fox News viewers (aka Republicans) lacked basic knowledge about international affairs, which viewers of other networks were well aware of.

Goldberg is worried about a “mob of uninformed louts”? He should spend less time lamenting possible participation of ex-cons and more time wondering why those who share his ideological agenda are so tragically ignorant about current events.