Poll Result of the Day: Truthers vs. Birthers
Generally, I out-of-hand dismiss poll results under, say, 25% meant to imply that a party, country, or demographic are stupid or out of touch. Because almost always, those poll results are entirely without context. X% of Republicans believe Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. OMG! Y% of Icelanders believe in pixies! What morons!
The fact of the matter is, if you poll any demographic on the right question, you can find a good chunk of them who believe in really dumb things. I’ve written a post (that I can’t find now) giving a few examples. But angels, ghosts, UFO abductions, bigfoot, Leonardi DaVinci accurately predicting the Fall of Man, on and on and on. But the truth is, as PJ O’Rourke put it, the average person is pretty dumb, and by definition, that makes half of the people out there even dumber. My own rule of thumb is under 25% of any given population is roughly on par with those that believe in ghosts/angels/vampires/bigfoot/scientology, so one has to be real careful not to generalize.
I HAVE found the polling results relating to Birtherism, or the belief that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States, to be interesting for the simple fact that it pushes past my 25% rule. In most red states, a plurality of Republican voters (usually mid 30s to mid 40s) believe it, which is above and beyond just the general variability of human dumbassity. Some have compared this to Trutherism, which is a perfectly fair comparison. So PPP decided to poll both, nationally, to see what they got.
23% of Americans think Barack Obama was not born in the United States. 14% of Americans think George W. Bush was involved in 911—either allowing it to happen or orchestrating it. The 9% difference is significant, but neither breach my own standard of general human nuttiness.
A bit eyebrow-raising—in the general population, 78% do not believe Bush was behind 9/11. Only 59% believe Obama is a legitimate President. Meaning, the “don’t knows” are virtually non-existent to the Truther question, but legion to the Birther one.
To put that another way, in the general population, 41% cannot say that Obama is an American. 22% cannot say Bush was behind 9/11.
However, the party breakdown is more interesting.
Among Republicans, 42%—a plurality—think Obama was not born in America.
Among Democrats, 25% think Bush was behind 911. The plurality isn’t even close, with 67% saying he was not.
How significant is that, in the grand scheme of things? Who knows.
But, according to my own general yardstick for such things, Trutherism falls about where I would expect it to—in the general range common to any nutty proposition. Roughly the same amount of Democrats believe in Trutherism as people believe in vampires. That says much less about Democrats than it does about the crazy shit people are inclined to believe.
On the Birther question, however, we’re pushing past the normal range of nuttiness, and are getting a bit more mainstream, at least in the Republican ranks. About twice as many people believe in Birtherism as I would expect them to applying my general rule of thumb. In other words, it’s something more than run-of-the-mill crazy.
What bothers me a bit more about this sort of thing entails my own assumptions about crazy thoughts, and is based on what one might call the galaxy of nuttiness that comes in the Truther/Birther package. For example, a Truther, and I’ve known many, will generally have a constellation of other beliefs that sort of goes part-and-parcel with Trutherism, and tends towards a fanatical skepticism about government in general. That often leads to them being “don’t tread on me” style libertarians, ala Ron Paul, or “the government is out to get you” conspiracy theorists ala Alex Jones. Birtherism, and I’ve known less but enough to generalize, tend towards a much more cultural/racial/religion based constellation of thoughts—there are Good Decent Americans and then there are the rest of them, from horrifying illegal immigrants to muslims demographically taking over Europe and about to instantiate Sharia law, etc. etc, which generally leads them into a weird tribalistic culture war crouch, ala “we are being taken over by Others” culturists/racists ala Lou Dobbs, or “there is a conspiracy to subjugate the American way of life” hysterics ala Glenn Beck.
Although, unlike what I imagine is the Paul/Jones/Dobbs/Beck crossover, only 2% believe both that Obama is not an American AND that Bush was behind 9/11. Which is significant in its own right, though I’ll have to chew that one over some more.
In any case, next time you compare Trutherism and Birtherism, these results are a good thing to keep in mind. 25% vs. 42% is a pretty damn significant difference (as is, in the gen pop, 22/41).
Conclusion: Statistically, there is a significant difference between the dominant conspiracy theory on the left about Bush vs. the dominant conspiracy theory on the right about Obama, and that difference is also reflected among the general population numbers.
What qualitative meanings you want to draw from that is up to you, and highly, highly debatable. But it’s worth getting on record.
Just for the record, I’m pretty sure that the “average guy” quote is J.R. “Bob” Dobbs rather than O’Rourke. Both fine sources, to be sure. :)
Comment by Rojas — 9/23/2009 @ 9:34 pm
Your 25% number reminds me a lot of Kung Fu Monkeys discussion with Tyrone regarding the 25% Crazification Factor. (Scroll down deep into the dialogue)http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html
What I am constantly reminding my leftish leaning Human Rights work friends, who profess continuous and profound shock at the ridiculous beliefs asserted with absolute confidence birthers and others on the far right, is that 45% of our adult citizens believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. If 45% of your adults can believe that, against all evidnce, then they can believe anything.
Comment by Jack — 9/23/2009 @ 10:16 pm
What are the statistics on 9/11 Trutherism when it was at its peak?
Comment by K_Wright — 9/23/2009 @ 11:26 pm
I’m not sure I can equate the questioning of the birthplace of a President with the belief that a President intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place. One has nothing to do with the actions of the actual man and is based on some notion that only native born Americans should be president. The other suggests treason of the highest kind.
While the Birthers are obviously infested with crazies using the Birther issue as a cover for their own disturbed fears of the President, their actual complaint is relatively mild. It’s not much of a leap for someone to make a leap towards the Birther camp because of one too many forwarded emails. Hell, McCain had some similar issues with the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The issue itself is generally benign. One cannot say the same about the Truthers. The issue is not one of a constitutional technicality but rather one of a President being complicit in a terrorist attack in order to go to war in the Middle East.
Thus I am not surprised that the Birther belief is more mainstream than the Truther belief; the Birther belief is more mainstream by its very nature.
I think we’re comparing apples to oranges and am frankly surprised that only 9% more of the general population questions Obama’s birth location than believe that Bush allowed 9/11 to occur. And as K_Wright notes, one wonders (and weeps) about the level of widespread belief in Trutherism in years past.
As an aside, I’m actually mildly surprised by the results of their question regarding whether Bush or Obama were the Anti-Christ.
Bush:
Yes: 8%
No: 81%
Not Sure: 11%
Obama:
Yes 10%
No: 79%
Not Sure: 11%
Comment by Cameron — 9/24/2009 @ 12:42 am
Given the history of American politics and war ie: the Gulf of Tonkin
and the perception of violent political events ie: the JFK assassination
it’s not hard to entertain the possibility of a nefarious government’s involvement in something this crazy especially when it requires something spectacular in order to establish a legitimate claim to power and to realign public will behind it’s goals. The culture already fosters a deep distrust of government, especially on the right where there was also a large truther movement on the fringe (Alex Jones etc).
It also didn’t help that the Bush government was brazenly incompetent before 9-11 and that it brazenly used security as a blunt object to further its goals after 9-11.
So when some film makers decided to make a movie tying all the different rorschach claims together into a slick piece of propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(film)
and then released it for free on the internet soon after the Bush people allegedly stole their second election and soon before they let a city drown in Louisiana and as it became apparent that they started a trillion dollar war based on lies they knew to be false, it became very easy to believe in the dystopic reality that they participated in the event that they used to benefit themselves so much.
The Truthers evolved into what they are, the Birthers started out the way they are. There is a difference.
Comment by thimbles — 9/24/2009 @ 1:14 am
Thimbles, whether or not an argument evolved into or began as what it is holds literally zero bearing on its legitimacy. When you have to justify a bad theory’s existence by, for example, backing it up with completely unrelated events (Katrina, 00/04 Elections) it does little to bolster the theory’s (and your) credibility. In fact, your entire argument for why 9/11 Trutherism is okay in comparison to Birtherism is predicated off of reasoning that PROVES that the very nature of Trutherism comes from dislike of a man rather than actual evidence or logic. (Or sanity.) “He stole an election! He let a whole city drown!!! That means he must have planned 9/11, even though he’s the most incompetent President ever!”
Now I know you believe that Democrats are all perfect saints sent down from Heaven with harps in hand, but let’s just call it what it is. Both theories are nothing more than mindless partisan attacks meant to rally a base against the President, and in the case of 9/11 Trutherism, it’s at best an attempt at elitist pseudo-intellectualism. (Sidenote – Perhaps another reason why its polling results in lower numbers: People can at least understand that allegedly lacking a birth certificate is bad for a President, but most people except the most cynical and politically desperate on the fringe can’t even wrap their minds around the mental boondoggle that is 9/11 Trutherism.)
You continually surprise me with your hyperpartisan support of any and all people and things and ideas with a -D at the end. I’m not claiming to be perfect when it comes to objectivity, but I can at least express disapproval of crackpot ideas like these and not even think twice about it. And to be sure, it would probably be a lot easier to make a case for Birtherism (even if it is mind-blowingly stupid), just based on how many steps it takes to get from point A to point B.
Comment by K_Wright — 9/24/2009 @ 3:49 am
True, but I didn’t claim that the truther argument had any legitimacy, so I guess we don’t have an argument.
What I was responding to was:
Comment by thimbles — 9/24/2009 @ 5:20 am
Ack. I should have closed my blockquote after “more mainstream by its very nature.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeVTzWelns
Comment by thimbles — 9/24/2009 @ 10:19 am
If your post wasn’t a justification for Trutherism by way of comparison to Birtherism, then I don’t know what it is. Clarification?
Comment by K_Wright — 9/24/2009 @ 10:49 am
Other questions: What are the stats on media coverage of Birthers vs. media coverage of Truthers. Movements also gain followers based on publicity.
What are the stats on Democrats vs. Republicans on people who think Bush’s presidency was illegitimate?
Comment by K_Wright — 9/24/2009 @ 10:58 am
At the risk of playing into your point here, my view is that the 2000 election result is something on which two people can have the same facts and reasonably disagree. I.e. whether you believe that Bush actually won the election is a matter of, frankly, opinion more than fact (which is indeed exactly why it went to the Supreme Court in the end, because the plain facts were not enough to render a verdict). Such is not the case of Trutherism and Birtherism, I don’t think.
Comment by Brad — 9/24/2009 @ 12:08 pm
We have an irrational element on the right.
We have an irrational element on the left.
The irrational movement on the right was prepped and ratcheted up before the democratic primary was over to assume Obama was a muslim/racist who paled around with radical socialists.
There’s a network of blogs and publications who will take any fringe claim and spread it to their audiences who treat the wild stories like gospel. These audiences then email their friends and spread the big lies into the public mind.
The quality of the sources doesn’t matter.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html
It’s just gotta have a simple narrative like, “Obama caused the financial crisis” which then goes into blogs, publications, emails, youtube, which then Fox News may pick it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVVVzEKauzY
Simple narratives with well defined good guys and bad guys that fit past narratives. An irrational person on the right can have a very strong opinion about a person without possessing a single real fact about him nor having a single real experience dealing with him and his policies.
They start with an impression and then the wild eyed newsletters fill in the “Indoctrinating our kids” blanks.
The movement on the left was angry with the election 2000, was pissed at Nader for playing the spoiler, was told that there was nothing we could do because the butterfly ballot gave the election to Bush and it was a democrat who designed it
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/palmbeach.recount/
so we had to wait for 4 years and hope or better luck next time.
He was accepted as the president and the left had to make do with that. Even if he turns out to be an idiot, it’s not like the republic isn’t strong enough to survive 4 years of an idiot.
Plus he had an all star cabinet, many with years in government service and had made millions in the private sector. He was supposed to have a non interventionist foreign polic We were worried he’d destabilize government finances with tax cuts and maybe cut some social programs, but that damage would be undone in the future election.
There was no conspiracy industry.
Then California started experiencing rolling blackouts. These problems, absent under Clinton and Bush I, showed up soon after Bush II. Still, it must be Gray Davis’s fault. The fed doesn’t regulate the energy markets of states normally, does it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Energy_Regulatory_Commission
Some economists and others starting writing missives about Enron and market manipulation, but there was no direct proof at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
And what’s all this about the secret energy task force?
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/8-secrets-of-cheneys-energy-task-force-come-to-light/
Then September 11th and all sorts of weird stuff happens.
Lies, expansion of government power, media manipulation, anthrax letters that are coming from inside the country, a weird hesitation to investigate the crime from the Bush Admin… weird.
Then a war.
Then a new war.
People were still smashing Dixie Chick albums for not being subservient enough to the leader of the free world. If there were conspiracy nuts at this point, they were still writing their tracts about still smoking rubble. Nobody wanted to hear about it because, “It’s too soon, man. Too soon.”
The original 9-11 conspiracy was published in france, in french
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11:_The_Big_Lie
and back then the left were having a hard enough time trying to talk about matters of history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU
never mind making wild accusations about the two thousand dead buried in concrete. People on the left could not imagine that elected American officials would be an accessory in the deaths of other Americans, but then you hear about the documented stuff with the Florida vote, Enron, Iraq, torture, warrantless wiretapping, making soldiers buy their own body armor, etc… and suddenly your definitions of what an elected government is capable of start to change.
Bush wanted servicemen to fly warplanes painted in UN colors so that Sadaam could shoot them down and Bush could have a pretext for war. He wanted servicemen to die for his pretext.
You prime enough people with those kinds of experiences under your policy, and those people will start to wonder when someone says “Look at this controlled demolition. I’ll bet our president pulled a Reichstag.”
So there is an irrational movement on the right that became irrational at the mention of Obama’s name and party affiliation.
And there’s an irrational movement on the left which started out ambivalent, but was moved to radicalism in response to policies exceeding their worst fears.
One has consumed beliefs from stories prepared by their conservative network.
One has evolved beliefs out of their personal history.
To me the mystery is not why “only 9% more of the general population questions Obama’s birth location than believe that Bush allowed 9/11 to occur”, it’s how a population can have so much experience with a conscienceless group of people and yet 78% of them still manage to give that group the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by thimbles — 9/24/2009 @ 1:50 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hH3rIamUn0
Comment by thimbles — 9/24/2009 @ 1:55 pm