Ron Ross, at The American Spectator, reports that a Zogby International survey "confirms what (he's) long suspected — when it comes to economics, liberals are clueless." The survey asks respondents to identify themselves on a spectrum from very liberal to very conservative, and then eight questions come. Ross notes:
On the basis of eight economic questions, wrong answers correlated consistently with ideology. Progressive/very liberal respondents got four times more wrong answers than libertarians.
Ross concludes that the survey results "demonstrate a strong connection between economic ignorance and interventionist enthusiasm. Those who are most determined to interfere with the economy know the least about it."
Well, golly, if there really is a connection between not knowing economics and being a liberal, that'd be a bad thing. Especially for liberals and their views about economics. So let's look at all the economics that liberals are so ignorant about. Here are two of the most telling questions:
1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable. (Unenlightened Answer: Disagree)
6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited. (Unenlightened Answer: Agree)
The rest of the questions are the usual libertarian talking points (minimum wage laws increase unemployment, licensing professional services causes the price for those services to be raised). The crazy thing is that question 1 is so vaguely stated that anyone with any sense would ask for clarification: Are the restrictions with regard to where the houses will be built, what kind of houses, or whether they must meet safety codes, and so on? In some cases, those restrictions will drive prices up, and other times, down. Of course, the survey has the right answer that they do. Why? Because that's what libertarians believe.
With question 6, I don't see this as a matter of having knowledge of basic economics or any such thing, but more a question of having ethical judgment about what counts as exploitation. Again, because the right answers are being determined by people who casually use the term "leftist," as a term for anyone who's not a member of the John Birch Society, the right answers will likely be different from, say, any morally developed adult.
None of this would be surprising or irritating if the survey and report did not use terms like "unenlightened" and "wrong" for the answers here. Now, if the survey were about, say, basic economic knowledge, where there is no reasonable disagreement, then we'd have no problem. But here we have the simple strategy of polling one's opponents in a disagreement, noting how they have views you reject, casting them as being wrong, and then reporting how often those with whom you disagree are wrong about things that matter. But, even if liberals are in error, these are not the simple errors that Ross portrays them to be. These are controversial matters in economics, ones about which intelligent people disagree. To portray this as a matter of ignorance, as Ross does, is not just a distortion of the debate, it's simple lying. But Ross is all too happy to run up the score when the deck is stacked:
What we're seeing all too often is "the arrogance of ignorance." Both arrogance and ignorance do enormous damage in the world, but together they are a toxic brew.
Ross's gerrymandered study really only shows that opinions about economics track political self-identification. That's not news, and certainly not something to make the hay Ross does of it. There's another toxic brew, in addition to Ross's arrogance and ignorance: it's willful deception and self-righteous indignation.
**Hello Everyone–Welcome Scott Aikin, our newest contributor