Jeff Koopersmith

Full Gallup -- Part 1
Gallup Poll Substantiates the Truth:
Republicans Are Dimwits
"Esteemed" pollster plays the race card to muddy the waters -- Rove Administration is counting on the Koopersmith Hypothesis
by Jeff Koopersmith

Sept. 22, 2003 -- WASHINGTON (APJP) -- Okay, I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek (emphasis on somewhat), but I think Republicans are just plain dumb.

Ever since an alleged 1978 University of Chicago omnibus study evidencing that average Republican IQs were a full 21 points below average Democrat IQs, I've been following up on evidence to the contrary.

After all, I have quite a few Republican friends who at least seem smart.

However, I have yet to find any evidence reputing the basic assumption -- and that is after more than a dozen years monitoring this arena.

Back in February of this year, those geniuses at The Gallup Organization, otherwise known as "the Gallup Poll," published an analysis by Jeffrey M. Jones headlined "Blacks, Postgraduates Among Groups Most Likely to Oppose Iraq Invasion."

Naturally, this caught my attention, inasmuch I believe that Gallup is a conservative-leaning company which often stretches its analyses to protect the status quo -- specifically and especially the Republican Party and President Bush.

It was their headline that sounded my inner alarm. Why would Gallup single out minorities in a press release that is supposedly about education and intelligence? Or so it seemed to me.

So I spent some time looking at the numbers, and came away with this conclusion:

Gallup is not to be trusted, at least as far as describing the truth about America's opinions.

The Poll

A number of elements within Mr. Jones' and Gallup's "analysis" concerned me. Why, for example, did Gallup think it important to bring the reader's attention to what black Americans thought about President Bush's planned attack on Iraq -- when the color of one's skin, at least in the Unites States, is reportedly not what determines whether one can vote or not? This, of course, is the only salient point in a headline referring to a poll such as that foisted on the reader.

Let's examine, in more detail, what Gallup -- through Jones -- says about this poll.

Gallup tells us that during December and January, it conducted six polls showing that support for war against Iraq is highest among Republicans, conservatives, younger Americans and those with a high school education or less.

Well, I thought, that makes sense.

Mr. Jones does not mention race in his summary -- yet he adds later, for some mysterious reason, that "A majority of Blacks, Democrats, liberals, and those with a postgraduate education oppose an invasion."

What was that?

In an IQ test, if one were to ask which of these three -- BLACKS, DEMOCRATS or LIBERALS -- does not belong in the group, one might choose BLACKS, no?

But okay, let's assume that Mr. Jones had a bad day.

Since June 2002, Gallup has asked Americans whether they "favor or oppose invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

The comments on race bothered me. On race, Mr. Jones points out that 58% of white Americans favor war as opposed to 37% of black Americans. Of course this statement, alone, is not only misleading but unimportant -- unless of course one wants to make the case that blacks don't like war.

And naturally, Gallup will not be pleased by these observations -- mostly because they fail to point out that black Americans are more heavily impacted in their consideration of war inasmuch as the current economic conditions -- in fact, those of the past 300 years -- may force black Americans into Donald Rumsfeld's preferred "allivolunteer military" simply because the Pentagon is one almost sure place that where "jobs" for black Americans are abundant and black Americans can rise to positions of "management authority" to boot.

What this has to do with American opinion is questionable, unless Gallup sees the nation in racial terms. Why not then report other minority views -- for instance Arab Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Asian Americans? I would guess these ratios would be as "interesting" or more so. Gallup would argue that only blacks and Hispanics are of important considation because they make up great proportions of the American potential electorate -- but this position is indefensible if only from fairness. President Bush doesn't speak only to blacks when he makes policy, does he? Nor does he address only blacks when he decides to go to war!

Jones also decides to tell us what Hispanic Americans feel about the war -- even though Hispanic Americans are white and their preferences follow those of non-Hispanic Caucasians closer than Karl Rove's mouth to the President's behind (forgive me).

Is there something about language or genes that makes Hispanics different from whites? This is most alarming, because the difference in attitudes between self-identified Hispanic Americans and white Americans on the planned Iraqi conflict are almost nil -- with whites supporting President Bush by 58% and Hispanics by 60%.

Is reporting Hispanic attitudes a cover for the report on black Americans? One can only guess -- and I guess "Yes".

The headline on the Gallup release is "Blacks, Postgraduates Among Groups Most Likely to Oppose Iraq Invasion." It does mention Hispanics, yet black attitudes are only interesting if socio-economic conditions that drive black Americans to the military for employment are also underscored. I also find it at least amusing that Hispanics were not included in the headline -- but educational status was. For instance, Mr. Jones could have headlined his wisdom "Hispanics and Undereducated Whites Support Bush" which would have not been any less inflammatory than his current headline.

Gallup reports:

"...as on many issues in American politics, a racial divide is evident on opinions about the situation in Iraq. A majority of whites, 58%, favor of an invasion of Iraq -- much higher than the 37% of blacks who favor an invasion. A majority of blacks, 56%, oppose an invasion. Sixty percent of Hispanics favor an invasion, while 33% are opposed."

One might surmise, therefore, that blacks are either more highly educated, or at least more thoughtful than whites if one looks to these Iraq war attitudes broken out by education.

Well, that may also be plain balderdash. While it is true that race, gender education, and age are related to partisanship, it is also true that in the United States, race plays a major role in economic opportunity -- for most minorities. Blacks, for instance, make up a significantly large proportion of the American military.

What is more important is the propensity of young black men and women to enlist in the active military service. General propensity was relatively high in 1992 yet declined in the following years. The decline in propensity was relatively slight for the Marine Corps, yet particularly steep for blacks which continues today.

Blacks display higher propensity levels to enlist in the military than do whites. Much higher.

In 1997, propensity measures were higher among black males than white males. Much higher.

Current results also showed propensity to be inversely related to education: those with more education had lower propensity.

Propensity was highest among youth who were not employed but looking for work.

This brings us -- surprise! -- to education. If one starts out having faith in studies like that from the University of Chicago, one sees clearly that the less educated one is, the more likely one is to "follow the leader" -- and perhaps more likely to believe Big Lies.

It is no coincidence that there is a direct and significant relationship between the level of one's education and his or her inclination to believe the Bush Administration with regard an invasion of Iraq.

The numbers are stunning -- with 60% of the least educated Americans supporting the President and only 40% of highly educated Americans backing his policies.

Age figures also back my theory: that the dumber you are, the more likely you are to buy into whatever a perceived leader tells you to believe, without question. If age is wisdom, then supporters of President Bush cannot be considered wise. One can draw a straight line -- down -- between the youngest in Gallup's sample (18-29) supporting Bush at 61% and the older sample (65 and over) supporting Bush at only 44%

Gallup tells us that the smarter you are, and the older you are the better your perception must be when assessing Bush Administration policies re Iraq.

Ergo, because Republicans support invasion of Iraq by a whopping 75% as opposed to Democrats at only 39%, Republicans must be, are, far weaker critical thinkers than are Democrats, again bolstering decades-long suspicions about basic levels of intelligence among self-identified Republicans.

This is not rocket science, and the numbers do not lie, although it appears, at least, that Mr. Jones and The Gallup "Organization" are loathe to take the extra step to reveal the truth.

Here they are, expressed as the Five Koopersmith Hypotheses:

1. The younger you are, the dumber you are.

2. The poorer you are, the less educated you are.

3. The less education you have, the dumber you are.

4. The dumber you are, the more you support George W. Bush.

5. The weaker you are, the more you support George W. Bush.

These are the most important truths revealed by Gallup here, make no mistake about it.

The Media

Those within in the Administration are counting on the Koopersmith Hypotheses as truth. And they are relying on the dozen men, corporate executives who control television and radio news and punditry to skew Americans views, as much as possible toward the corporate, ultra-conservative viewpoint.

Karl Rove and George Bush again enlist the elderly Big Lie theory espoused by Hitler and Goebbels as they assumed power in Germany just prior to World War II:

"If the lie is big enough, the masses [because they're asses] will believe it."

Yet even the masses are not as stupid as President Bush and his Administration rely. They weren't gullible enough, although it took time, to believe that former President Clinton was a criminal because he had a sexual liaison with an unprincipled woman in the white House. And, as support for an Iraqi war diminishes, the basic instincts of even the least educated are beginning to churn.

President Bush knows this -- well, maybe he doesn't know or understand it, but weasels like Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer-- the president's top mouthpieces and strategists -- do.

That's why you'll see us attack Iraq sooner rather than later -- and dumber rather than wiser.

TABLE FROM GALLUP POLLS mentioned:

JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."