Adam Berinsky has new data:
These polls demonstrate that the public is back where it was before Obama released his long form birth certificate. In April 2011 55% of the public believed that Obama was born in the United States. Today 55% of the public believes that he was born in the United States.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh, America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtLjWb0Fmo
Is it really ‘birtherism?’ Can the data not be used to ‘establish’ what most intelligent people have already figured out – that in nine cases out of ten ‘birtherism’ is just a proxy for racism? After all there’s a pretty strong overlap (from what I’ve seen) and the more, shall we say, racially unenlightened regions of the USA.
Oh, come off it, already. From a strictly normative view falsely accusing a president of deliberately killing (or allowing to be killed) 3,000 of his own countrymen (and thus being guilty of High Treason in addition to mass murder) is a slander exceeding by several orders of magnitude falsely accusing a president of not being born in the country.
And don’t even try to claim that this was limited only to a fringe of Bush critics. The few polls taken on this showed roughly a third of Democratic respondents agreeing with this and roughly another third claiming not to be sure. The one difference between these two cases is that the trutherism stuff was apparently embarrassing enough that poll takers suddenly lost interest in asking the questions.
(Cont’d) By way of contrast, surveyers have been positively obsessed with pushing the Birtherism stories and keeping the matter fresh in the public’s mind. News “reporters” and TV news show hosts did not demand that every Democratic politician publicly denounce truthers every time they appeared on their shows. I’m sorry, but the Birtherism stuff, silly as it is, does not represent some uniquely unprecedented cancer on the body politic, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find the line separating legitimate social scientific inquiry and rank, self-serving propaganda.
E: For what it’s worth, the social scientists investigating this stuff, like Berinsky, look at birthers and truthers both. More generally, they are interested in misperceptions writ large, not simply ones held by more Republicans than Democrats. I think what keeps birtherism in the news more than trutherism is simply that Obama is president and Bush is not.
I have t disagree John. The reason ‘Trutherism’ hasn’t taken off in the same way is that multiple high profile Democratic politicians at both the state and federal level, including some running for the presidency did not publicly side with or play footsie with the Truthers. They rejected them, period.
By contrast, we’ve seen a birther bill passed in Arizona, birtherism written into several state GOP policy platforms etc. etc. etc.
@E – birtherism is a binary issue. The president either was or wasn’t born in the USA. Trutherism (which, to be clear, I do not subscribe to and find ridiculous) includes segments that believe that the Bush administration had sufficient warning of the 9/11 attacks but failed to act on them for some unknown ulterior motive. This theory, which while almost certainly wrong, is at least somewhat plausible to the average rational person given that a) there is a wealth of documentary evidence showing the Bush administration did indeed have plenty of warning about an imminent Al Qaida terror attack and failed to follow up largely due to a combination of incompetence, hubris and strategic tunnel vision, and b) the same administration launched an illegal war on incredibly dodgy (not to say entirely manufactured) evidence that ended up making a lot of GOP linked corporations gazillions of dollars.
This is in addition to the global regime of torture, attempts to suspend habeas corpus, ‘the unitary executive’, everything Cheney did, the career of Alberto Gonzales, Plamegate and any number of indicators that the Bush administration was perfectly happy to brutalise innocent people to achieve its policy goals and reward its allies.
By contrast, Obama is black. This is the sole piece of ‘evidence’ in favour of birtherism. And lets not forget that the Republican party has since the 1970′s used racial animus (or to use Pat Buchanan’s pungent wordplay, relied on ‘negrophobe’ voters) to mobilise an electoral coalition that is largely made up of people who have consistently been impoverished and politically weakened by GOP policies.
In short the GOP has every reason to encourage racism, ‘birtherism’ serves as an excellent proxy to avoid making it too explicit, and has done so with gusto. ‘Trutherism’ and the Dems, not so much, so they haven’t. Its more the fact that Bush was a really awful president who did some pretty evil things, making it easy to believe he did one really evil thing (which, again, to be clear I do not believe he did.)
@John Sides:
If Adam Berinsky has been equally curious about Trutherism as Birtherism then I’m sorry if I’ve tossed him into the same category as the people I am criticizing. My point is that during the Bush years, I did not hear anywhere near the same prolonged, sustained outrage about Trutherism among the “responsible media” than I have about Birtherism now. Truthers were certainly ridiculed, but their beliefs were often presented as a mostly harmless eccentricity that highlights the colorful hurley-burley of democracy.
@Daragh McDowell:
Please specify the “multiple high profile” Republican officials who have “publicly sided” or “played footsie” with Birtherism. Donald Trump does not count. He was never a serious presidential candidate and in the past he was as likely to support Democrats as Republicans. As far as “playing footsie,” I think a major, popular left-wing film maker who received an honored seat alongside former president Jimmy Carter at the 2004 Democratic National Convention qualifies as much as any.
Secondly, “Birtherism” is no more or less a “binary issue” than Trutherism is. People can believe everything from Obama is a sinister Manchurian candidate to believing he was “technically” born outside the USA and simply forgot to file the correct paper work. Most people don’t follow politics as closely as political junkies do, and are probably not even aware the Constitution does not allow foreign-born citizens to be president.
I’m sorry about Bush’s foreign policy, but it is not relevant here. If you want to act as if the Birthers represent some uniquely dangerous phenomenon in American society, you will have to confront the fact that the widespread conspiracy mongering among people whose political orientation you are more sympathetic to could more than hold its own against their counterparts. (And here I’ve had plenty of anecdotal experience.)
Also, regarding this:
And lets not forget that the Republican party has since the 1970′s used racial animus (or to use Pat Buchanan’s pungent wordplay, relied on ‘negrophobe’ voters) to mobilise an electoral coalition that is largely made up of people who have consistently been impoverished and politically weakened by GOP policies.
Putting aside the dubious suggestion that typical GOP voters are secretly pining for the days of Jim Crow and Klan terror (they’re not, if I have to even point this out), one of the consistent messages appearing in political science literature (including this blog) is that on the aggregate this is simply not true. In terms of economic class, poor whites are the least Republican. Some certainly do vote for them, but they do not “largely ma[k]e up” the Republican base.
Incidentally, I seriously doubt if Jesse Jackson were president that people would be speculating on his “foreign birth,” so I think a more reasonable basis for the Birther stuff was that Obama’s father was born in Kenya, not that Obama is black.
@E – at the risk of spamming the thread, here’s a list of prominent GOP politicians who have embraced, or played Footsie with the birhters.
Ken Bennet – AZ SoS and current fave to replace Jan Brewer (threatened to keep Obama off ballot in 2012)
Pete Hoekstra – MI Senate candidate and congressman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/pete-hoekstra-presidential-candidate-eligibility-office_n_1555932.html)
Mike Coffman – CO congressman. (To be fair, Coffman said “I don’t know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don’t know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he’s not an American. He’s just not an American.” Which isn’t dog whistle racism at all.)
Michelle Bachmann – One time presidential front runner.
Jean Schmidt – soon to be ex-congresswoman.
Sarah Palin – former GOP VP candidate.
David Vitter – LA Senator
Newt Gingrich – former House Speaker and one-time GOP presidential frontrunner (though again, to be fair his accusations that Obama was engaging in ‘Kenyan anti-colonial behaviour’ could also just be standard racism)
Joe Arpaio – Maricopa county sheriff with national profile who has frequently been touted as candidate for higher office.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs – all highly influential GOP supporting commentators.
This is in addition to the legions of GOPers from Boehner onwards who said that ‘while they personally believe Obama was born here’ it was ‘ a legitimate question’ etc. By contrast, when heckled by 9/11 truthers, Bill Clinton said STFU in no uncertain terms.
(Oh an BTW – Michael Moore made his comments regarding trutherism in 2007. Three years after the DNC convention to which he was invited. Was he invited back?
And very cute claiming that ‘appealing to racism’ means ‘GOP voters are secret Klansmen.’ Birtherism comes from one thing – an attempt to portray Obama as ‘other.’ It was done very effectively to John Kerry, and tried with less effect on Bill Clinton. Its the basic GOP playbook – resentiment. And yes, racism is a huge part of that. But speaking of Jim Crow, you’ll note that preventing ‘voter fraud’ by enacting legislation that effectively makes it more difficult for minorities to vote has been a massive staple of the GOP platform since 2008 (indeed the PA governor has boasted that Romney will win the state because of it.) This is despite multiple studies showing voter fraud is non-existent. You’ll also remember the ‘New Black Panther Party’ (ie three weird dudes standing around a polling station) that became a staple of Fox News and other GOP media outlets for years despite, well, not actually existing in any sense of the word. For a non-racist party that doesn’t in any way want to discriminate against blacks, these are curious actions to say the least.
Also, I think you’ll find in the ‘solid south’ states that make up a crucial part of the GOP’s electoral coalition, its working class whites that make up the numbers.
@E – poor whites are very much the republican base and have been for the past 20 – 30 years, I refer you to “what’s the matter with Kansas” and any number of other books about people voting against their economic interests.
If poor whites werent the GOP base who is it? College educated middle class voters? Not according to any study of political ideology I’ve seen in my lifetime.
@E: Regarding Berinsky’s analysis of Trutherism, here is one of his old HuffPo posts on this topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-berinsky/poll-shows-false-obama-be_b_714503.html
He did perform polling on the Trutherism question. Conclusion:
“The overall acceptance of this particular piece of misinformation was lower than the Obama citizenship case … but the accusation here is certainly more severe.”
(I do not want this to turn into a spamfest either, so I will only address a few points).
@Raj:
1) The problem with Berinsky’s comparison here is that the question about Obama’s birth is being asked during his administration. The Truther question is being asked more than two years after the conclusion of the Bush administration. (And, yes, I reiterate my strong distaste for both of these conspiracy theories).
@Daragh McDowell:
1. LOL on Michael Moore giving his Truther statements in “2007.” Fahrenheit 9/11 came out in 2004.
Also:
And very cute claiming that ‘appealing to racism’ means ‘GOP voters are secret Klansmen.’ Birtherism comes from one thing – an attempt to portray Obama as ‘other.’ It was done very effectively to John Kerry, and tried with less effect on Bill Clinton.
Yes, John Kerry’s triumph over racism is an inspiring story.
But speaking of Jim Crow, you’ll note that preventing ‘voter fraud’ by enacting legislation that effectively makes it more difficult for minorities to vote has been a massive staple of the GOP platform since 2008 (indeed the PA governor has boasted that Romney will win the state because of it.) This is despite multiple studies showing voter fraud is non-existent.
So requiring photo IDs (free for voting in racist South Corolina) are just like poll taxes? It’s nice to see that the left is no longer concerned about voter fraud. (Here’s a fun experiment: google “Diebold Voting Machines” “Bush”)
Also, the issue people had about the black panthers at the Philadelphia voting station (despite “not actually existing in any sense of the word”) was that they were caught on video clearly intimidating voters and the justice department gave them a slap on the wrist. No one believes that the country is on the verge of being “taken over” by the New Black Panther Party. Had they been Klansman standing outside of a polling station in some southern town you can bet the book would have been thrown at them and the media would not let up for years claiming that Republican officials were “responsible.”
Finally, I’m not going to pretend that I have enough time to verify each of the individuals that you listed but a quick google search lead me to this. There is, of course the case of “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones, not to mention Dennis Kucinich’s “footsie” playing.
@Jason: you are simply wrong.
@E
Fahrenheit 9/11 does not, in fact, suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. It points out there are questionable connections between the Bush family and various Saudi oil billionaires, who are also government officials in a state that is a sponsor and exporter of Wahhabism, which underpins Al’Qaida and other militant Islamic groups’ legitimisation strategies, and that this raises questions. It then points out that a number of companies with links to Dick Cheney made shedloads of money out of the Iraq war and this is also problematic. Both of these allegations are true. You, by contrast, are now in the realm of making stuff up.
I said John Kerry was portrayed as an ‘other’ – which is indeed what the GOP did with it’s ‘French’ line of attack, and shameless distortions, not to mention outright lies about his war record. You are, not for the first time on this thread, pretending your opponents argued something they didn’t.
Given that in the US a) poor and minority voters are far more likely not to have photo ID, b) it takes considerable time, effort and money to acquire photo ID (which is kind of tough when you’re working two-three minimum wage jobs to make ends meet) c) contra to your assertions GOP controlled states such as Wisconsin have issued explicit instructions not to inform people they are entitled to free IDand d) contrary to legitimate concerns about electronic voting machines that had been shown to have incredibly weak security features, there has been NO EVIDENCE of significant voter fraud of the kind that would justify these measures despite the Bush administration pressuring US Attorney’s to hunt for cases of this kind, leading to several of them being fired and a scandal that resulted in the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, it seems curious that GOP governors in swing states have moved rapidly to implement such laws without also implementing in parallel programs to ensure maximum access to the ballot for legitimate voters. In fact they have done precisely the opposite. There are many possible motivations for doing this – ensuring fair elections with a high degree of integrity is not one of them. Keeping their political opponents key constituencies from exercising their democratic rights is. Do the maths.
On the NBPP – a) precisely zero voters alleged they were intimidated by the three goons standing outside a polling station b) even if they had this would be a matter for municipal law enforcement given the tiny nature of the organisation, c) conservative media organisations relentlessly hyped the case for years afterwards. Fox News in particular used it as a prima facie justification for voter ID laws.
Dennis Kucinich was effectively forced out of the Democratic party and congress earlier this year, largely because of his rather odd views. Apart from that you have found precisely one CANDIDATE for office in a state that Democrats will almost certainly not win this cycle (hence ensuring that serious candidates stay out) on a website that flies the flag for deceased professional libelist Andrew Breitbart. It would be an understatement to say the credibility of your sources are credible. Your response to actual cases of Republicans actually embracing or dallying with birtherism (which I provided a few links for before time got away from me myself) is to say ‘I don’t have time to see if its true or not so I’ll just assume it’s not.’ That’s certainly your right – but it also undermines your credibility somewhat.
Look E – you’re essentially showing up on a poli-sci blog and trying to claim that racial animus hasn’t been an essential part of GOP electoral politics for decades, even though the architects of the current GOP electoral coalition (Buchanan, Atwater etc.) are actually on record confirming that racial animus formed a core part of their electoral strategies. This is a Sissyphean task at best. I suggest you find some other way to reconcile your support for the GOP with the party’s objective racism. (or at least I’m assuming you’re a supporter – your posts do suggest same.)
I wish it was possible to have a “like” button here. One note, though, with regard to a further above post: I think it might be more instructive for those who perhaps aren’t aware (if you get my drift) if you had italicized the Nietzschean ressentiment reference.
I will also quibble with a specific of one quote: “to mobilise an electoral coalition that is largely made up of people who have consistently been impoverished and politically weakened by GOP policies.”
Although I generally agree with the substance of this remark (it is certainly correct on what matters), I think that you take it a bit too far by claiming that the coalition is “largely” made up of the impoverished. I think perhaps you’d want to hedge that a bit by saying that they are an instrumental or necessary piece of the GOP coalition instead.
Also, I’d like to add that the racial animus that the party’s elite have used to become or stay relevant – especially in the south and in white flight suburbs of the midwest – do not only apply to the white poor. They most definitely also apply to the white middle class and even to white elite in some areas. On a purely speculative note, the amount of racism that exists in rich white southern communities is actually worse than that of poor whites.
I don’t remember who said approximately this, but it was linked to by Andrew Sullivan awhile back: the most racist people in the south are not those at football games, but those who frequent country clubs and are found often in seersucker suits. I concur.
Thanks for the kind words! You’re right on all counts – I’ve been commenting here as kind of a mental break from a consulting project I’m working on, so have written a touch in haste at times.
You’re spot on on the racism thing. From a purely anecdotal perspective its not that poor whites are necessarily any more or less racist than upper and middle class whites. Its that the latter group knows that its sometimes tactically appropriate to conceal it.
Exactly. I specifically want to highlight that last line.
Sorry, on reflection that last line is a little too strong. What I should have said is a party that objectively uses racism and racial animus for instrumental political purposes.
@ Danagh:
Regarding “Fahrenheit 9/11,” I assumed that he engaged in actual Trutherism in the movie, rather than “pre-Trutherism.” It turns out I was wrong here; I’m sorry. However, based on your descriptions and a summary of the movie on a (largely sympathetic) Wikipaedia entry, I’m not at all surprised that he would become a full-blown one in 2007. I leave it to others to ponder the appropriateness of his honored seat at the Democratic National Convention. My opinion of Moore remains now as it was.
I said John Kerry was portrayed as an ‘other’ – which is indeed what the GOP did with it’s ‘French’ line of attack, and shameless distortions, not to mention outright lies about his war record. You are, not for the first time on this thread, pretending your opponents argued something they didn’t.
I know what you said. My response is that neither Kerry nor Clinton (obviously) have anything to do with your charges of racism. Your attempt to cite them to bolster your case that the Birthers are motivated by racism rather than partisanship is strange.
On voting fraud, my position is simple: There may be a number of strategies to combat voter fraud, but it is entirely legitimate to require photo IDs as a condition for voting, whether for a nominal fee or free (though I am more than willing to expend public money for free photo IDs if it is necessary, even though it is absurd to compare low-cost IDs to a “poll tax.”)
Dennis Kucinich was effectively forced out of the Democratic party and congress earlier this year, largely because of his rather odd views.
Um, no. Kucinich is retiring because of redistricting. He was forced to run against Marcy Kaptur, a long-established Democratic Congresswomen, and lost. This had nothing to do with principled leftists standing up against Trutherism.
Look E – you’re essentially showing up on a poli-sci blog and trying to claim that racial animus hasn’t been an essential part of GOP electoral politics for decades,
Well, then. I guess I’m playing with the big boys now. And yes, I am claiming that “racial animus hasn’t been an essential part of GOP electoral politics for decades.” I assume disagreements over tax policy, welfare, medical issues, social issues and foreign policy are, in fact, disagreements over taxes, welfare, medicine, social issues, and foreign policy.
even though the architects of the current GOP electoral coalition (Buchanan, Atwater etc.) are actually on record confirming that racial animus formed a core part of their electoral strategies.
I neither appointed Pat Buchanan nor Lee Atwater to be my spokesman, nor do I need to answer for them. Their comments are not sufficient “evidence” to indict large numbers of voters as blood-curdling racists.
@E
First off its Daragh, not Danagh.
Second, RE: Fahrenheit 9/11 – ProTip: if you’re going to claim a filmmaker promoted wildly implausible conspiracy theories and accused a president of treason in one of his films, you may want to do more research than read the Wikipedia page, such as watching it.
Third on Kerry/Clinton – actually the fact that the GOP has attempted to defeat its electoral opponents not on policy grounds but on identity motivated political discourses (‘real Americans’ etc.) does not in fact undercut my argument like you think. Every Democratic president since Carter has been sotto voce accused by his GOP opponent of favouring shiftless blacks over hardworking whites. Obama just moves the target up the scale.
Fourth on Kucinich: If you think that internal Democratic party politics did not affect the outcome of redistricting efforts in Ohio and the subsequent mobilisation of political support in the resulting primary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in buying.
Fifth, on voter ID. You haven’t addressed the fact that multiple studies and a huge dragnet operation by the Bush White House failed to find any significant voter fraud, making the erection of significant barriers to exercising the franchise for poor and minority voters totally unnecessary (not to mention undermining persistent claims by GOP officials that a) it is a problem that must be addressed b) that doing so will help Republicans win.) Again – do the maths.
Sixth, on your assumptions about what motivates GOP voters and Atwater/Buchanan. You did not appoint them your spokespeople. The GOP however, DID appoint them as architects of their current electoral coalition. They have been honest about the fact that it was “disagreements over tax policy, welfare, medical issues, social issues and foreign policy” that brought about GOP electoral victories, but rather as Atwater so eloquently put it, finding new and subtle ways to yell ‘n*gger, n*gger, n*gger’ without being too obvious about it. You certainly don’t have to answer for them. But it is beyond ridiculous to claim that their comments about the electoral coalition they were instrumental in building (supported, by the way, by the statistical facts) do not in fact say anything about said electoral coalition.
There are degrees of racism. Not every racist is a Klansman. Some are just jerks. However it is indisputable that racists make up a key part of the GOP electoral coalition. There is also a significant overlap between this segment of the GOP electoral coalition and the ‘birthers.’ You may not like this. You may find it difficult to accept that you, I’m sure a fine upstanding non-racist nevertheless support a party that depends for its continued survival on appealing to racism. But thems the breaks, babycakes. Either make peace with it or find another party.
Ahem – that should of course read NOT disagreements over policy etc.
Da[nr]agh:
I’m beginning to think you regard Kucinich’s fate to be something of a tragedy. Perhaps one day Michael Moore will make a documentary about the Democratic conspiracy to oust him?
Since studies have shown we have nothing to worry about concerning voting fraud then perhaps we also do not need to worry about Diebold and electronic voting machines. Obviously, Republican fears of Democratic voting fraud are clearly absurd.
For what it’s worth, Robert Pastor of American University, who shares your lack of concern about the prevalence of voting fraud, does not share your worries that photo IDs “suppress” votes. Neither does Hans von Spakovsky , whom you no doubt dismiss out of hand. It’s interesting that when it comes to political campaign contributions, we are told that “It’s not just corruption, but the appearance of corruption.” I think it is a sad statement that we are reduced to debating the obvious legitimacy of verifying that people who are casting ballots are who they say they are, not to mention casting aspersions at those, i.e. the overwhelming majority of voters, who support these laws.
Regarding your fake outrage over “real Americans,” I wish I could resist the urge to point out your ideological brethren’s habit of (ahem, “otherizing”) white religious Protestants (not to mention traditionalist Catholics) with ugly paranoia concerning subversive “theocratic” plots hatched by “Christian Reconstructionists” who probably couldn’t fill half a conference room at a Howard Johnson’s airport hotel. Then there is the “plot” to “ban birth control” and the efforts of Democrats to bravely force the ~2% of the population who have qualms in this area out of the charitable business in order to comply with their consciences. (I, for one, breathe easier knowing America is free from the threat of Cardinal Richelieu.)
While I’m at it, I might as well call to your attention the example of Bill Sparkman, the part-time Kentucky census worker whose “murder” was insinuated by numerous television pundits and bloggers from Rachel Maddow to Andrew Sullivan against “right-wing extremist” hillbillies until it turned out to be, in fact, a suicide. (And let’s not even get started on the Jared Loughner fiasco.)
It must upset you greatly that happy normal people that you believe are actually hollow-plastic-people-who-live-in-sterile-lifeless-suburbs-in-their-ticky-tacky-homes-in-a-cookie-cutter-neighborhood-with-their-”Stepford-wives” would dare suggest that they are, in fact, real people with real concerns. I’m sorry they don’t live in authentic, righteously funky neighborhoods, but then they weren’t the originators of the post-war politics of authenticity, were they?
I’m a bit tired of this. Since it is obviously so important to you, you may have the last word.
And, oh, “babycakes”?
Wow E – that’s a whole lot of assigning beliefs to me that I don’t have (I think Kucinich is a bit of a whack-job), failure to read the stuff you’re linking to (forging signatures on a petition is not ‘voter fraud,’ neither is “illegally helping people vote by absentee ballot.” And Voter-ID laws would do nothing to combat either – remember the allegation is that people are voting multiple times using false registrations) and general ‘what aboutery.’ Again – you seem to display a surprising degree of ressentiment and paranoid assumptions about the beliefs of others – I am in fact, not an American, and do not have ‘ideological brethren’ in the Democratic party.
But then again you’ve cited Hans Von Spakovsky (no ‘r’ there sparky), a man whose answer to charges that he relentless politicised the civil rights division as a Bush admin DOJ official was ‘I don’t recall.’ How can I argue with such a paragon of integritude!