Goldberg endorses Jim Crow-era poll tests?

August 1, 2007

I often think that if Jonah Goldberg didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him. Last month, he wanted to eliminate public schools. This month, he wants to bring back Jim Crow-era poll tests.

Well, he doesn’t jump to that conclusion right away, of course, he just works his way to it. In his latest LA Times column — I’m still not clear on why the Times hired him — he makes the case that most Americans don’t understand their system of government very well, so it’s probably foolish to encourage the uninformed to vote. On this, I think Goldberg is on fairly safe ground. In fact, I’ve argued for quite some time that we (the nation) should focus less on more voting and instead emphasize better voting.

But instead of just leaving a reasonable criticism of the electorate at that, Goldberg has to push his luck.

Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people about the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?

A voting test would point the arrow of civic engagement up, instead of down, sending the signal that becoming an informed citizen is a valued accomplishment. And if that’s not a good enough reason, maybe this is: If you threaten to take the vote away from the certifiably uninformed, voter turnout will almost certainly get a boost.

Goldberg may or may not remember this, but the nation already experimented with poll tests — in the Deep South as a way to keep African Americans from participating in elections. Maybe Goldberg has heard of the general description of these disgusting and racist tactics — they’re called Jim Crow laws.

In fact, poll tests existed until a certain law was passed. Perhaps the Voting Rights Act of 1965 might ring a bell for Goldberg?

Now, reading over his column, Goldberg makes no references to race or ethnicity. He’s not explicitly endorsing a proposal to discriminate against anyone, except those who meet his undefined standard for political sophistication. But one has to be spectacularly tone deaf to support poll tests without a) recognizing their historical shame; and b) at least acknowledging their racist history.

That said, and with tongue planted firmly in cheek, let’s also consider the partisan implications of Goldberg’s idea — and who’d benefit.

Goldberg doesn’t mention in it in his piece, but if there were going to be poll tests, I suspect many of Goldberg’s ideological allies would be disenfranchised.

In October 2003, for example, the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a thorough study of public knowledge and attitudes about current events and the war on terrorism. Researchers found that the public’s mistaken impressions of three facets of U.S. foreign policy — discovery of non-existent WMD in Iraq, alleged Iraqi involvement in 9/11, and international support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq — helped fuel support for the war.

But the key to the poll was the realization that Americans’ opinions were shaped in large part by which news outlet they relied upon to receive their information. Those people who relied on real news outlets did fairly well, but Fox News viewers were thoroughly confused and got the questions wrong. For example, only 16% of NPR and PBS listeners/viewers believed that the U.S. had “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was “working closely with al Queda,” while 67% of Fox News viewers believed it.

Overall, 80% of those who relied on Fox News as their primary news source believed at least one of the three misperceptions. Viewers/listeners/readers of other news outlets didn’t even come close to this total. Statistically speaking, the poor Fox News dupes would have done better in this survey if they received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims were accurate.

Goldberg is right; a lot of data suggests Americans are uninformed. But how many of Goldberg’s fellow conservatives are skewing the results to make the rest of us look bad?

And for that matter, how confident is Goldberg that Republicans would ever win another election if these uninformed conservatives had to pass a test before voting?

i’m probably going to get murdered for this, but i’m not so sure that this is a bad idea. i for one am tired of people who have no clue about what is going on in this country electing morons into office. i think a basic civics test could be put together that wouldn’t discriminate in any way, except against the uninformed.

so, let the attack begin………..

  • And the sad part is that the idiots who believe the Bushie lies spewed by Faux News are the ones who simply cannot be reasoned with. They know those false things because… they know them. And they go around making all kinds of BS statements and recommendations which only make sense if you believe the exact opposite of the truth about those key issues.

    Maybe knowing the basics of our democratic system should be a requirement for any candidate who seeks office at the national level. That would weed out a lot of our problems.

  • just Bill has a point. However, I don’t have any answers as to how one can make it without skewing a bias one way or another without dropping down a slippery slope (same view I have on who should have kids, a parenting license would be great but I don’t see a reasonable balanced way of implementing it.)

    Guess Mama’s Boy doesn’t see the implications as an “unbiased” poll test would wipe out the Repub’s base.

  • My proposed questions:

    What is your name?

    What is your quest?

    What is the average flight speed of an unladened sparrow?

  • Poll worker: Did we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

    Potential voter: Yes

    Poll Worker: Sorry, you are too uninformed to vote, this uniformed genteman will escort you out.

    Well, we can dream, right?

  • just bill, i have reluctantly contemplated the same thing. i read a story several weeks ago about the naturalization test and thought about how many of the harshly anti-immigrant masses trying to “protect their country” likely couldn’t answer the questions about their precious country. and it struck me as inherently fair that everyone, not just immigrants, should be expected to know those things. i am tired of all of us havingto live with the uninformed choices of willfully ignorant masses who then move on temporary and manipulated passions to the polls one day every four years.

    yes i am troubled by the elitism of the idea. yes i am troubled by the history of the idea. but i don’t really know how else we can get our country back to making rational choices in politicans and policies. from a crassly partisan perspective, this sort of thing used to be anathema to the left because the educated business classes that were traditionally Repub would all pass while many lower income, lower educated working class who were mainly Dems would have a higher failure rate or simply be deterred from the start. Now, however, I’m not sure how one can read Whats the Matter With Kansas, or look at the polls about what Faux News viewers think they know, without suspecting a poll test would cut against the creationists and neo-Confederates.

    the 2004 election really challenged my faith in this citizenry’s ability to be self-governing. polls that show a rising number who believe we have found WMDs or that Saddam was involved with 9/11 only cause the loss of faith to accellerate. i’m not entirely sure we can survive self-governance. and really, CB, I’m not sure how you can be so willing to dismiss an poll exam out of hand after the story you posted yesterday about potential voters opposing everything about Iraq but rating the R candidates ahead of the Ds on Iraq-related issues.

  • CB, your tongue in cheek analysis is one of the best arguments for resurrecting “poll tests” that I’ve ever seen. Kills Fox Noise and undermines MSM manipulation in one fell swoop.

    ‘Voter Qualification’ or some such sanitized term might overcome the unpleasant stigma associated with poll tests. That said, isn’t there fair grounds for looking at some form of voter competence testing?

    Obviously it would have to be counterbalanced by all sorts of checks and provisions to secure it against discriminatory abuse. But is that so far beyond our capabilities?

    Personally, absent historical ill repute, I think there’s a lot of interesting meat to chew on this bone. Bon appetit!

  • Zeitgeist has a lot of good points here.

    Ultimately it’s a question of philosophy: are the ideals of self-government better served by more voters, many of whom don’t have the first frickin’ clue about what they’re voting on, or a smaller but better-informed franchise?

    I don’t know. Though I’d prefer to attempt to strengthen democracy by taking steps to promote a better informed citizenry–free airtime for candidates, restoring a citizenship curriculum to public schools, building some discussion of public issues into workplaces, etc–that seems unrealistic in a rabidly capitalist society (e.g. the networks won’t ever give away airtime).

    Though Goldberg is (with apologies to The Rude Pundit) a fat wad of fuck, I’m not altogether prepared to dismiss the concept, or to impugn his motivations–particularly because, as CB points out, his side would be more likely to suffer in terms of outcomes.

  • If we had to answer questions in order to vote, I could go with
    1) Who was the best president since 1970? (Answer: Bill Clinton)
    2) Who were the three worst presidents since 1970 (Answer: G.W. Bush, Nixon, Reagan)
    3) To which party did Bush, Reagan and Nixon belong? (Republicans).

    More seriously, uninformed voting is less poisonous to a democracy than disenfranchisement.

  • Why does the Los Angeles Times hire Jonah Goldbreg (and fire Robert Scheer)???

    Could it be because the paper was bought by the far far far right Chicago Tribune, which then sent out their editors and managers to take over the paper and turn it into the West Coast Class A Farm Team of the far far far right Chicago Tribune (and immediately hired Jonah and baby and the equally worthless Max Bootlicker), and then went and sold the paper to a far far far far right investor from Chicago, who has continued shrinking the paper to a shaodw of its former self? Maybe, huh, ya think????

    Anyone living in Los Angeles knows that the Times has pretty much reverted to the kind of litterbox liner it was back in the Bad Old Days of Harrison Grey Otis. And of course, to fully corporatize it, it costs twice as much for half as much, doesn’t publish a Sunday edition worth reading anymore, and won’t even publish useful things like a TV Guide that covers more than daily prime time.

    And the cats no longer enjoy taking dumps on it.

  • i’m not entirely sure we can survive self-governance. and really, CB, I’m not sure how you can be so willing to dismiss an poll exam out of hand after the story you posted yesterday about potential voters opposing everything about Iraq but rating the R candidates ahead of the Ds on Iraq-related issues.

    Comment by Zeitgeist

    The reason that “poll tests” aren’t a good idea is simple – voting is not a rational examination of options.

    People don’t evaluate a candidate’s 12-point plan – if they did, Democrats would have a veto-proof majority in Congress, which wouldn’t be needed against a Democratic President.

    Voting is an emotional act based on a perceived connection – shared values, respect, whatever.

    No poll test will change that.

    There will always be people like Rove and Cheney that cater to our base natures. And there will always be people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama who cater to our better natures.

    The trick is to elect more of the latter, and less of the former.

    Educate everyone, including voters. Inspire them to turn off the TV, forget about Britney and Paris, and realize that self-government requires them to be a little less self-absorbed and a little more community-involved.

    But, for better or worse, stupid people and people I disagree with have a right to vote – and we shouldn’t abridge that.

  • Every time an election rolled around, I would give my kids the same answer to, “why do you have to go vote?” That answer was, “Voting is the responsibility of every citizen for the privilege of living in a free and democratic society.” And I truly believe that.

    I would love for voters to be more informed about their government and their history, about the Constitution and what it does and does not provide. I think the schools should be offering some form of education on these things from kindergarten forward – a citizenry that is better educated about the workings of government would tend, I think, to hold not only elected representatives to a higher standard, but would also hold the media to a higher standard, with the further benefit of having more accountability and more informed debate in all areas.

    Do I want a test to qualify someone to vote? No, I don’t. There is far too much emphasis in this country on testing, with the result that there is “teaching to the test,” which, in my opinion, inhibits something that desperately needs to be encouraged: the ability to think and reason and question.

  • Umm, how do we know that the first question wouldn’t be “Did we find WMD in Iraq?” and that accepted answer wouldn’t be “yes”? These are the people who robo-call, push poll and refuse to count the votes of soldiers in Iraq. Do we trust them to make up an “informed voter” test? Who would be in charge of that? Karl Rove?

  • For anyone who thinks this might be a good idea and wonders “how confident is Goldberg that Republicans would ever win another election if these uninformed conservatives had to pass a test before voting?”

    Trust me, he’s confident. They’d do it the same way they do now: they’d cheat. All it would give them is one more way to do so.

    Look at the long lines in 2004 in Ohio. How much longer will those be when you have to take a test? It’s a GOP wet dream.

    Sure, I’ve thought about it before when confronted with the astounding ignorance of most Republicans, but I’m to cynical to think that it would be used as anything other than a tool to prohibit expedient voting in urban areas.

  • The government-approved sample questions are interesting. I don’t know why everyone shouldn’t be expected to know most of these (after all, the original idea of public education was that a common baseline of shared information was essential to a functioning democracy).

    My favorite part, however, is that our current leaders would miss several of these questions. Numbers 23 & 24, for example have the nerve to suggest there are only 3 branches, not 4, and no Cheney Brnach is mentioned. Obviously some updating is needed. Similarly #77 asks who has the power to declare war. The rather quaint nostalgic answer given is Congress.

  • Tim has the best test so far ~

    Don’t thet teach Civics in public schools anymore? I had four years of history and a year of Civics required to get out of High School plus an elective year of current events. my children and grandchildren look at me with blank expressions when I mention this. How about a required High School course on the US Constitution with the Federalist Papers for a text book?

    The trouble with poll tests is illustrated above. Virtually every suggestion (except Tim’s) has a progressive bias. Think about the poll tests they’d come up with in southern Indiana.

    I was involved in voter registration in the Carolinas in the ’60’s. The best (cynical) poll test I ever heard of was in eastern NC. The registrar would look the (negro) voter in the eye and ask, “Who you gonna vote for, boy?”

  • One problem is comparing the sort of questions asked during JC days to the questions asked by the study conducted by UMD to the sort of questions asked by would-be citizens. The voting poll questions were deliberately slanted to keep people with lower levels of education (primarily African American) from voting. The UMD asked about current events.

    I suspect that if you started asking people about the Bill of Rights and the three branches of government there would be no clear advantage for members of either party. Unless you started looking at blog readers of course 😉

  • Keeping in mind that we currently have an administration that “creates its own reality”; what basis would anyone have to believe that the ‘truth’ would be the ‘correct’ answers to the questions?

  • Instead of a civics test to qualify for your Constitutional right to vote (pretty oxy-moronic if you ask me) — why not a civics test for the privilege to hold a license to drive a car? You’d reach far more people that way and not infringe upon the right to vote!

  • Poll worker: Are poll tests consistent with the most basic principles of democracy?

    Potential voter: Yes

    Poll Worker: Sorry, you are too uninformed to vote, this uniformed gentleman will escort you out.

  • As long as we’re doing the tongue in cheek thing, a friend of mine advocates weighting votes by IQ, so that if you fall at the 77th percentile, your vote counts 0.77 of a vote.

    Seriously, though, I think there ought to be a test for writers whose work appears in any for-sale publication that does not clearly identify itself as partisan. Sample questions…
    — Do you know the difference between fact and opinion?
    — Are you occasionally or frequently overcome by an irrepressible urge to make shit up?
    — Do you know the meaning of the term, research?
    — Etc.

  • Screw it. Universal sufferage. You are born with the right to vote and can do so from the moment you are born. Let’s get some real entertainment into the political world as the presidental candidates dumb down their messages even below the Fox News level!

  • Unsaid in the Doughy Pantload’s recommendation is that he gets to administer and grade the tests. So if you answered ‘Saddam had no connection to 9/11’ you would lose your right to vote. Nice try, Doughboy.

  • We’d wind up with something more like:

    Sorry, you are not uniformed enough to vote, this uninformed gentleman will escort you out

  • Well, Jonah, here’s a bulletin for you: The vote isn’t a privilege of the educated; it’s a right of citizenship. Just like with free speech, there are lots of idiots I wish didn’t have it, but if I want mine, I guess I have to let you have yours, however annoying that may be.

  • As I recall, the vote is guaranteed in the Constitution, period. Don’t fuck with that right. Yes there are deluded, willfully ignorant voters out there who couldn’t find there asshole with both hands and their heads on backwards but that’s always been the case. The idea was that things would even out in the wash. There are enough assholes trying to take this right away as it is (doesn’t anyone recall the caging allegations, not to mention the US Attorney firings because they wouldn’t take bogus voter fraud cases before courts). My biggest problem is with the idea of a test. Who’s going to come up with this test and what will they ask? Will the test questions be changed from time to time and who will make the changes? Sorry, but it’s a bit too elitist for me and truly a slippery slope.

  • What is the average flight speed of an unladened sparrow?

    African or European?

    More on topic, how about a poll test, but you still get to vote. Whether your vote counts or not depends on whether or not you passed the test. I’m not really advocating this, just wondering about it.

    I still don’t like the idea of poll tests (or taxes) but if we combined a basic civics test along with a payment for voting we actually might get a better informed electorate and higher turnout. Where does the money come from? Why a tax on the candidates, of course! Say 5% of the total spent on their campaigns. If this drives money out of the system, all the better.

  • During the time of the Crow-era poll test (and tax) people (primarily black people) were prevented from being educated about how our government works or issues of the day. Today it’s different. The education and information is readily available yet I find it amazing how uninformed so many of my fellow citizens are about Iraq or the constitution. I’m not against a discussion of poll test as being legitimate or even needed, especially since Fox Noise and the MSM steno-propaganda have made it a goal to dumb down America. I imagine that if one were denied voting because they couldn’t pass the poll test the would be so embarrassed they would become better informed and Fox Noise would lose a lot of viewers. Clearly the ones to suffer most in the elections would be republicans who depend on misinformation to garner supporters.

  • btw…since we all agree that we would like voters to be better informed or at least minimumly informed yet all should still have the right to vote then perhaps finding a way to require this minimum should come from other areas than the polls. Perhaps as mentioned in comment #21 to hold a license to drive though that wouldn’t cover many voters, there must be other ways. Perhaps when registering to vote the voter is given a handout that must be read, signed and returned before registration is complete. Maybe a national civics test sent to all voters. But I am one that believes in republican corruption at the polls based on recent demonstrations by the RNC to distort the voting process by any means available to win elections. This also includes using the media(like Fox etc.) to pound misinformation into public consciousness. If it will affect the vote the RNC will try to find a way to manipulate it to their favor, legal or not.

  • I’ve thought about this for a while and it has some very good reasons to reccomend it, as cited above, and it has at least as many bad reasons not to, also above. I have come to another side of the same coin. Have anyone running for any office in the US, sherriff, city councilman, town cryer or dog catcher, and every state and local official take a test as they file for their office. Make it test the knowledge we expect of our HS Graduates or naturalized citizens, the higher the office, the harder( more in depth) the test. That would stop a bunch of the idiots in Washington from ever get there. Remember just last week a CA Dem Congresswoman wrote a constituent about how impeaching Gonzo is not in the Constitution. And there are no end of stupid unconstitutional Repugs who forget we have a 1st, 4th 5th, 8th etc amendments.I remember reading an article a few years ago asking pols a few of the questions on the naturalization test and being quite dismayed by how few got all correct. I would also include in the politicians test national pundits, cabinet officials, high level political federal appointees and the federal judiciary also take it. This way we get around all the ickyness associated with a poll test and make it a pol test instead. Make the testing requirements diferent for local (say 8th grade level) state (12th grade) and national (college level civics knowledge). Maybe for Presidential and cabinet level we could add in some essay questions as well. And make it something like a 90% proficiency to be allowed on the ballot. frankly, I do not think the President could pass 8th grade level test. And it would certainly disqualify any attorney general candidate who doesn’t think we have a right to habeus corpus from ever being sworn in.

  • Also, no matter what one thinks of Hugo Chavez, he has done one brilliant thing. He realized the previously ruling party/junta got away with so much bad stuff because most of the populace was poor, uneducated and did not know the constitution. After his election he printed up, for every citizen, a book size copy of the Venezuelan constitution, and he started reading groups in the poorest slums abd barrios and outlying communities andtaught the population to read, by learning about their constitution. He now has an informed electorate who love him and are grateful to him, and will stand with him forever against the traditional rich leadership class.

    Do I think we need a Constitution Project here? We’ve already discussed classicly why an informed and educated constituency is the basis for any democracy. And we’ve also discussed how our counterparts in the populace seem to have very little working or practical knowledge of our constitution or why it’s important to all of us.

    So good on Hugo Chavez. And honestly, I don’t care where a good idea comes from, I care about it’s usefulness to us.

  • Hugo Chavez would be a MAJOR improvement over GW Bush.

    The problem is that not enough people vote. Offer a $25 tax rebate for each election voted in during the tax year.

    In quite a few countries they print pictures of the candidates and party logos on the ballots because sizable portions of the electorate can’t read. I opine that there are damned few poor illiterates in this country that can’t see through GWB. It requires a whole lot of self delusional abstract thinking to get behind this government.

  • […] i read a story several weeks ago about the naturalization test […] — Zeitgeist, @6

    Don’t know what was in the article, but. I took that test (in the early eighties) and it, in no way, compares to a “poll test”. We had a fairly long list of possible questions relating to things like US history, Constitution, branches of govt etc. I understand that, in bigger cities, there are courses one can take to find the answers to those quuestions; here, I studied by myself (we do have a public library and the librarian recommended the highschool textbook), with a bit of help from my husband. when I had questions the textbook didn’t answer.

    But on current events? All I had to know was who the governor of my state was, who the 2 Senators and who the Representative for my district (on the national level). That’s it.

    And that was more than 20yrs ago. If I had chosen never to read a sentence in the paper (much less blogs) since then… if I decided to remain willfully ignorant once past that test… I’d still be entitled to vote today.

    I do like Dee’s sugestion (@32): pol tests, not poll tests.

  • You all have got to be *bleep* kidding me. Poll tests? The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was in some of y’all’s lifetimes and I hope you others learned of it in school. My right to vote — uninformed, reactionary, whimsical, whatever — should not be dependent on agreement with WHATEVER party/ideology is ascendant.

    MudFunk @22 FTW.

  • Into the marrow. Sparrow? Swallow.

    I knew it. Tasty!

    Poll worker: Are poll tests consistent with the most basic principles of democracy? — MudF unk #22.

    From Current USCIS Test Questions :
    Q87 (of 100) What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?
    The right to vote.

    … except if you’re in prison sentence, or insane. Or under eighteen. Fair enough.

    Screw it. Universal sufferage [sic]. — Martin #24.
    As I recall, the vote is guaranteed in the Constitution, period. Don’t fuck with that right. […] Sorry, but it’s a bit too elitist for me and truly a slippery slope. — CharlieT #28.

    .. how about a poll test, but you still get to vote. Whether your vote counts or not depends on whether or not you passed the test. I’m not really advocating this, just wondering about it. — Edo #29. How about a poll test and the value of your vote is proportional to your score? (I’m not really advocating.. etc.)

    Voting is an emotional act […] — JC #13.

    — why not a civics test for the privilege to hold a license to drive a car? You’d reach far more people that way and not infringe upon the right to vote! — JKap #21. Yipeee! Dead cool.

    The Framers were worried about this also. How did it go (we had it some days back) ?.. Franklin, or Jefferson, wanted only landowners to have the vote because everyone else would be too stupid. Madison countered by suggesting compulsory education, which won the day. So now we have public schools and universal suffrage. Trouble is, the education is no longer fulfilling its primary function of maintaining an informed electorate to sustain an effective democracy.

    How to correct? Carrot or stick? Offer incentives to inquire, learn and understand (measured by a test?); or punish and deprive for failure to inquire, learn … ? The vote, for most people, is not a sufficiently coveted object for them to make much effort to acquire it or retain it (except when a whole class or group are denied it and its value becomes paramount). So, individually, the carrot is a rather weak force. Bearing in mind that it is education that is the issue not suffrage, linking its requirement to some passionately desired object — like hold a driving license or Paris Hilton — seems a fruitful approach.

    No one should be denied the vote for any reason at all, actually. That is the fundamental requirement of a democracy. However, the survival of the democracy itself requires safeguards of which an informed electorate is one. An ill-informed or deceived electorate can actually vote for its own destruction. I think that is what we are seeing and concerned about today, and I think that is what we are obliged to find a solution for.

    Sorry, you are not uniformed enough to vote, this uninformed gentleman will escort you out — JTK #26.

  • Now I think I’d rather lock people in a room for an hour with campaign literature that has been vetted for its truthfulness and thus make sure that people actually familiarize themselves with the issues and where people stand on them before they cast their vote.

  • I suspect Martin may be sarcastic in his universal suffrage from birth, but that’s what I’d like to see. Though some qualifying test, similar to a driver’s license test, but not based on age, could be reasonable.

  • How about “How old is the Earth?” Not 6000 years.
    “Is evolution by natural selection scientifically established?” We would eliminate several of the Republican presidential candidates.
    “Is global warming a hoax?” We might eliminate the state of Oklahoma.

  • What if….

    We do ask questions like “Did we find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?”

    Maybe a dozen or so. Ones that we discover via polling to be very widespread. But instead of the disqualifying people from voting, they just have to think about the lies they’ve believed for, say, two weeks before voting.

    That could be a sobering experience.

  • Hooray Goldilocks!!

    I have helped previously disenfranchised and barely literate people register to vote. They took a keen interest in candidates and, lacking the education to judge the sophistic bullshit that campaigns run on, they homed in on the bullshitters. I know of at least one case where newly enfranchised negro (contemporary word) voters overwhelmingly chose a white incumbent who vowed ‘not to oppose integration’ over a bullshitting negro minister who said all of the right words. If we all just home in on the bullshitters when we make our electoral decisions America will get better.

    Universal suffrage must remain universal.

    I have the LAST WORD

    • Comments are closed.