Attention Deficit Democracy

6/13/2007

By James Bovard

Palgrave Macmillan 2006 Hardcover Buy here

Book Review
Reviewed by Samuel DeCanio

James Bovard has written an important and timely book. In Attention Deficit Democracy, Bovard focuses on one of the most understudied aspects of modern democratic government, the extent of voter ignorance and the ramifications an ill-informed electorate may have for democratic politics. While social scientists and pundits occasionally note that the public often exhibits shocking displays of ignorance, few have turned to examine how such ignorance actually effects the process of government. As Attention Deficit Democracy discusses how voter ignorance has influenced American democracy, it is an interesting and insightful read that should be of interest to a broad spectrum of readers.

Attention Deficit Democracy makes several arguments regarding the effects of voter ignorance. In contrast to most conventional social scientific approaches, Bovard suggests that widespread voter ignorance has unexpected, and potentially disturbing, effects upon democratic governance, which prevents the electorate from actually directing government.  The grants governments an increased capability to implement policies that the electorate is unaware of, and would potentially oppose if they understood them. Bovard presents a deceptively simple argument, and draws on a range of sources, historical documents, and surveys to illustrate voter ignorance of numerous regulatory policies.

Some of the evidence Bovard presents regarding American's knowledge of current political events are shocking, and can only be described as disheartening. Many readers will probably find his discussion of contemporary foreign policy the most interesting sections of the book. Some of the most interesting data Bovard presents relate to the American public's knowledge of the Iraq war, specifically involving mass attitudes toward and knowledge regarding the relationships between Saddam Hussein's regime, Al Qaeda and the 9/11 terror attacks. Not surprisingly, many voters were ignorant of many aspects of the American invasion of Iraq, as well as specific information regarding the relationships between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

However, Bovard presents data indicating that Americans were not merely ignorant, but rather were systematically wrong in what they believed about the specifics regarding the invasion. For example, about a quarter of Americans believed that Iraq had actually used weapons of mass destruction against American troops during the invasion of Iraq (pg. 20).

Even so, the problem Bovard suggests is not merely that the electorate is ignorant of what government is doing. Rather, he suggests that voters' ignorance enables political elites to manipulate them into reaching conclusions based upon factually inaccurate information. In one interesting example, Bovard presents data indicating that although only 3% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 several days after the attacks had occurred, by 2003 over 70% of the public believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks, and nearly half of the electorate believed that most or some of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens (pg. 18).

Bovard suggests that this change in information was manipulated by political elites who could frame public statements in ways that lead voters to conclude that there actually were connections between 9/11 and Saddam's regime. Since this conclusion has not been established by any reliable intelligence, Bovard suggests that this was merely one example, perhaps among many, where democratic officials may have been able to manipulate the public into reaching a conclusion that was not based upon reliable information, yet had dramatic political and military consequences.

Though Bovard effectively illustrates the extent of voter ignorance his arguments regarding the effects of mass ignorance occasionally make assumptions which are not entirely persuasive, or appear to actually beg important questions about the effects voter ignorance may have upon political decisions. For example, Bovard's discussion of Franklin Roosevelt's lying to the American public about his attempts to draw the United States into World War II appears to assume that such lies, and the ignorance that enabled them to be effective, were necessarily a bad thing, and merely confirmation that politicians systematically engage in misleading deception.

However, Bovard does not appear to recognize that the very ignorance he has closely documented may be a cause of politicians' manipulations, and not an effect. For example, it seems likely that political elites recognize the extent of voter ignorance and conclude that since the public typically cannot understand the complexity of regulatory decisions, they have no choice but to simplify their depictions of what is occurring to a point where their public explanations appear manipulative. Indeed, Bovard does not appear to consider that the extent of voter ignorance could both provide a positive explanation for why such lying occurs (because politicians doubt the public can understand the complexity of their motives and objectives), yet at the same time, in certain situations, may create a normative justification for politicians to lie if they conclude that they cannot rely upon an informed public to make instrumentally rational political decisions.

For example, Roosevelt clearly lied to the public regarding his attempts to propel American into World War II, but it is difficult to see why this was a bad thing. Bovard argues that lies lead to government expansion, but the logic of this argument is not entirely convincing, for there is nothing about lying per se that should automatically lead lies to an expanding government. One could just as easily conclude that government officials could lie about their intention to shrink the size of government. In fact, Bovard's discussion of Leo Strauss (pg. 96-7) seems to indicate that lies can be associated with a variety of political ideologies and agendas.

However, the prevalence of public lies breeds problems for Bovard's analysis. For example, he seizes upon the Bush administration's use of the democratic peace argument to justify their actions. Bovard critiques this argument with an interesting discussion of instances where democratic countries have gone to war with each other. But he does not consider the possibility that Bush's use of the democratic peace argument is merely a post-hoc justification for a war whose initial purpose, to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was unexpectedly unfounded. Indeed, although democracy promotion is currently used to justify the Iraq war, this may be merely a political strategy by elites attempting to bolster flagging public support for a conflict whose initial justification (i.e., weapons of mass destruction) proved to be unfounded.

This scenario could be yet more evidence that voter ignorance facilitates manipulation of the public, however it suggests that we cannot merely take politicians' public pronouncements as revealing their actual preferences. Rather we need archival work and primary sources to actually determine whether democracy promotion is actually motivating certain elites, and since Bovard is investigating many contemporary events, it is unlikely that the sources necessary to address such a question could have been used in this book.

I found little that was systematically wrong with Bovard's analysis. His general point regarding the ignorance of the mass public is well documented, and his suggestion that the ignorance of mass opinion has ramifications for the autonomy of democratic states logically follows. Nevertheless, the book was not without its weaknesses. Bovard occasionally makes brief allusions to points which he seems to believe are self-evident, and those who share his political assumptions may be undisturbed.

In some instances these assumptions appear to leave large and important questions untouched. For example, though Bovard criticizes Lincoln for having "contempt" for the Bill of Rights and engaging in other actions, such as jailing people without charges, and shutting down newspapers and state legislatures, as violations of liberty, there is no discussion of whether it is appropriate to deplore Lincoln's actions as violations of liberty, especially given that the institutions he suppressed were committed to maintaining egregious violations of African Americans' personal liberty. It is easy to point out that some of Lincoln's actions are not fully consistent with the Bill of Rights, but this ignores the more fundamental question of whether these temporary violations of some people's rights were justified by the liberty they secured for slaves.

At other points Bovard appears to make claims that need far closer documentation that what he provides. For example, Bovard seems to argue that political elites have far more control over controlling media coverage of scandals than seems to be the case. In his discussion of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal that "the only thing necessary for a successful coverup is for the president . . . to continuously proclaim that everything will be investigated, and then, months later, to proclaim that everything has already been investigated"( pg. 146). Yet, this seems far too facile as it involves a series of claims that need far closer documentation than what has been given. Indeed, political elites who were associated with the Abu Ghraib scandal did not feel as if they could simply cover up the event. For example, Donald Rumsfeld actually attempted to resign after the scandal broke, but President Bush refused to accept his resignation. This kind of action is hardly consistent with a depiction of elites who believe that they can effectively control any scandal simply by having the president make public statements, and may indicate that the media play a far more independent role than Bovard suggests.

While certain parts of Bovard's analysis could be strengthened, the book engaging and interesting. Bovard tackles an important and under-studied topic, and illustrates his arguments with engaging examples. For these reasons Attention Deficit Democracy will be of interest to anyone who cares about the health of contemporary American democracy.