Washington Post Asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?" UPDATE

Media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement has increased sluggishly. Undoubtedly, the lack of media attention has deprived the public of meaningful information about the movement and the means to scrutinize its activities.

For these reasons, I was surprised to read Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza's article which asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?"  Cillizza implies that the movement is probably overly hyped. He reaches this unstated conclusion after analyzing a recent Pew study which shows that only a small percentage of the public is following the protests "very closely":

Just 17 percent [of respondents] said they were following the protests “very closely”. Independents — at 19 percent — were keeping the closest eye on the “Occupy” efforts while just 12 percent of Republicans did the same.

Only 17 percent of self-identified Democrats said they had were [sic] watching the protests closely, a somewhat surprising number given the party’s recent embrace of the motives and goals of the “OWS” crowd.

"Very closely" is probably too high a standard to measure the importance of any movement's relevance to society at any given moment. This is especially true with respect to embryonic movements like Occupy Wall Street.

My examination of the Pew study adds additional context.  The five stories that respondents said they were following most closely include (in descending order): the economy, the death of Steve Jobs, the 2012 election, Amanda Knox, Afghanistan, and Occupy Wall Street. Yet, the study finds that only 7 percent of recent news coverage related to the Wall Street protests. Not surprisingly, only 7 percent of respondents listed the protests as the most important news story. The scant media coverage makes it difficult for the average member of the public to follow the protests closely.

The study also finds that the public is less concerned with the Wall Street protests than it was with the Tea Party in 2009, during the early stage of its development. Pew finds, however, that media coverage of both movements was roughly equal during their developmental stages.  Cillizza seizes upon this data to bolster his argument about the irrelevance of the protests.  But neither Pew nor Cillizza recognizes that the Tea Party protests were often violent and rancorous -- factors that invited public attention and which undoubtedly led to a subsequent surge in media coverage.

Final Word: A Tip for Organizers

Although I believe that Cillizza's column does not provide nearly enough context to help readers appreciate the Pew study, I also believe that participants in the early Occupy Wall Street movement must quickly cohere around a marketable and distinct message. At the moment, the group has apparently resisted developing a political platform or policy agenda. The lack of specific demands or proposals will likely deter media coverage and hinder growth in public attention.

Historically, successful social movements have utilized creative frames to express and market their messages. They have also developed public policy agendas that they wish to implement through the political process. Furthermore, successful social movements have raised the awareness of not only potential movement participants but of the public at large. Unless the budding Occupy Wall Street movement begins to utilize some traditional social movement mobilization techniques, it will probably dissipate without effectuating any meaningful social change.

[Note: I write and teach in the area of Law and Social Movements.]

UPDATE
Two new surveys suggest that Cillizza's article was shortsighted. First, a Time magazine survey finds that a 54 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement; only 17 percent "tend to oppose" it.

Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government

The Tea Party and conservative Republicans -- including Ron Paul -- continue to scream about the perils of the national government. Anything that comes out of Washington is horrible, oppressive, and -- undoubtedly -- unconstitutional.

They seemingly want the nation to return to the type of country it was under the Articles of Confederation. Well, the Framers believed that this was a bad idea. So, as much as the conservatives lament the passage of a imagined fantasy land when the states, as provided by the Constitution, were all-powerful, history has involved an expansion of federal powers. And each generation has inscribed this expansion in the Constitution.

After the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the next expansion in federal power came with the Civil War. Although conservatives want the states alone to determine the scope of important rights (e.g., Paul saying the states should decide abortion and sexual orientation issues), the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly limits the power of states with respect to substantive liberties, due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities. The Constitution also expands federal power with the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to tax income.

Conservatives have blatantly lied about history. Although they argue that the country was always -- until recently -- one of a very limited national government, the historical record shows that people in each generation of American history have generally favored more government due to the benefits that it brings to the People.

Rather than debating "whether" the government has a role in our lives, we should work together to identity issues that are suitable for governmental support and involvement. Instead, conservatives basically abhor anything at the federal level -- except for the military. While many liberals tend to think that a government-private sector collaboration is inherently suspicious - even though some of the most heralded liberal policies (like Medicare) involve a partnership with private entities.

This stalemate is extremely frustrating - particularly for those of us who have actual knowledge about history. The stalemate is also troublesome because it wastes precious time that we could spend mending the poor state of the country. And -- yes -- the government has a role in this as well.

So, here is a challenge to conservatives: Please name ONE (just one) country that has relative wealth, a democratic government, a good healthcare system, an educational system that provides basic early education for all residents, and a system of government that at least formally values due process, equal protection and civil liberty --- while at the same time having a central government that provides no services to the public -- except for national defense, that does not spend money to assist states with social services, and in which the people believe that government services are unhelpful, wrong, harmful to society, and a sign of totalitarianism.

TAKE A MINUTE. THINK. AND GET BACK TO ME.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Voters Cannot Recall a US Senator

The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not permit states to recall members of Congress. The ruling ended a Tea Party-backed effort to remove Senator Robert Menendez from office.

As I argued in two previous blog posts, US Supreme Court precedent clearly holds that the Constitution establishes the sole requirements of members of Congress. In the past, the Court invalidated a decision by the Speaker of the House not to seat Representative Adam Clayton Powell due to allegations of ethical misconduct. The Court also struck down a state law that established term limits for members of Congress. In both of these cases, the Court held that the Constitution sets forth the requirements for members of Congress and that neither Congress nor the states could alter those standards.

Furthermore, the Framers of the Constitution considered, but rejected, language that would have permitted the recall of members of Congress. The Constitution, however, allows for Congress to expel members by a 2/3 vote.

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with my analysis and reversed a lower court ruling that permitted the recall process to advance. Although the Tea Party frequently invokes the Constitution in its political commentary, the group made a gross misjudgment on this issue.

OUCH: Las Vegas Journalist Declares "Sharron Angle Is Dead"

Las Vegas Sun writer Jon Ralston has made a very ominous declaration for Nevada Republicans: "Sharon Angle is dead. . . ." Ralston offers a pretty dreadful picture regarding the future of Angle's campaign to become a US Senator. Here is a clip from the article:

With Angle’s hot air balloon leaking helium about as rapidly as oil left that Gulf well — 45 days and counting and the GOP Senate nominee still has not plugged it — the question is whether she can survive the fall to earth.

At least three polls I know of show Angle trailing Harry Reid, including Friday’s Mason-Dixon survey that has the Senate majority leader ahead, 44-37, outside the margin of error. Even if you don’t believe one of the polls, the trend is inescapable and the race’s dynamic is fundamentally altered.

Coming up on the 100-day mark until the election — and only three months until early voting starts — Reid remains manifestly unpopular, with more than half of those surveyed indicating they will not vote for him. But his strategy of driving people away from Angle and into either a “none of the above” posture or a oh-how-it-pains-me-to-vote-for-him stance has worked to perfection.

For more on the difficulty that Tea Party candidates face in general elections, see: Can Tea Party Candidates Win Elections In Less Conservative States?


UPDATE: Another Nevada journalist has ripped apart Angle's campaign. See: OUCH II: Another Scathing Review of Sharron Angle by Las Vegas Journalist.

Can Tea Party Candidates Win Elections In Less Conservative States?

In several Republican primaries, Tea Party-endorsed candidates enjoyed great success. Sharron Angle won the Nevada primary for US Senate by a landslide and started the general election campaign with a huge lead against incumbent Sen. Harry Reid.

In Florida's Senate contest, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio forced Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to run as an independent. Polls showed that Crist would have lost the primary election to Rubio by a wide margin.

Finally, in Kentucky, Rand Paul defeated his Republican primary challenger by a comfortable margin. Paul emerged from the primary with a huge lead over his Jack Conway, his Democratic opponent.

These victories, combined with a simplistic media narrative that portrays the election results as a bad sign for incumbents, helped to fuel the belief that the Tea Party was a powerful new political force that would wield tremendous political power in November. Many commentators, however, are now rethinking that message.

Once conservative Tea Party candidates began running general election campaigns and receiving scrutiny from the national media, their leads, particularly in politically divided states, evaporated. Today, a Mason-Dixon poll shows that Harry Reid now leads Angle by 7 points. In Florida, most polls have shown Crist leading Rubio since he abandoned the Republican Party. In addition, the latest poll has Conway and Rand tied in Kentucky (which is more conservative than either Nevada or Florida).

It is too soon to call these elections. Nevertheless, the tightening of the races confirms earlier analysis which predicted that Tea Party candidates would encounter difficulty in politically divided states -- even if they trounced opponents in Republican primaries. While Tea Party candidates should have an easy time in reliably conservative states like Utah and South Carolina, how they will perform in other jurisdictions remains an open question.

Nearly 2/3 of Tea Party Supporters Turn to Fox for Political News

A New York Times/CBS News poll indicates that Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more educated than the general public. Despite their higher educational attainment, Tea Party members turn to very limited and even questionable sources for information regarding politics. According to the poll, 63% of Tea Party supporters receive the majority of their political news from the Fox News Channel; only 23% of Americans turn to Fox for news. Furthermore, 47% of Tea Party supporters say that television is their main source for Tea Party information.

That Fox is the primary source of political news for Tea Party supporters probably explains some of their outlandish beliefs, which Fox would not strongly challenge or refute. 

64% believe that Obama has increased taxes -- when the opposite is true.

56% of them believe that Obama's policies favor the poor -- an opinion that is difficult to reconcile with the group's animosity towards corporate and Wall Street bailouts.

92% believe that Obama is leading the country towards socialism -- despite him favoring and implementing Bush's bank bailout.

30% believe that Obama was born in a foreign country; perhaps they think Hawaii is not part of the US.

57% have a favorable view of former president George W. Bush -- although he proposed the financial bailout (which they claim to hate), substantially increased the deficit and squandered a budget surplus.

No, Virginia, The Tea Party Is Not As Diverse As A Benetton Ad

A New York Times/CBS poll finds that Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more educated than the population at large. Not surprisingly, the poll also finds that the group's typical supporters are Republican, white, male, married and older than 45.  Whites, men and conservatives are concentrated in the Republican Party. Thus, the poll results are not shocking -- although a couple of recent polls attempt to portray the Tea Party movement as a diverse Benetton ad.

Given their age, it is also not surprising that most Tea Party supporters believe that Social Security and Medicare are worth the expense. Along with defense spending, these two categories account for 53% of spending by the federal government. It is unclear how the federal government could substantially reduce spending and taxes without cuts to the largest categories of expenditure. The poll results also suggest that people disagree with government spending -- unless they directly benefit from the spending program.  The contradictory conservative rallying cry "keep the government out of my Medicare" sums up that principle.  Less is best unless there's more for me.

Hullabaloo has more comprehensive analysis of the poll results.

Is the Tea Party "Mainstream"?

Recently, participants in the Tea Party as well as pollsters and pundits have attempted to describe the movement as "mainstream."  If the Tea Party movement organized to "protest" the center of political power in the US, then the effort to "mainstream" the organization seems counterintuitive. Holding aside this contradiction, I am intrigued by Greg Sargent's analysis in the Plum Line. Sargent seeks to debunk recent polls and commentary that portray the average Tea Party participant as the person next door. According to Sargent, this is only true if nearly 9/10 of your neighbors are white conservative Republicans or Independents. Here is a snip:

Folks pushing the idea that the Tea Party is mainstream and bipartisan are seizing on this headline from The Hill over the weekend:


Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Dems or independents

Turns out, though, that this story is about a poll released last week by a Republican-leaning firm that found 57% of Tea Partiers are self-identified Republicans, 28% are independent and 13% are Dems. So yeah, 41% are either indy or Dem, with Dems making up a small majority of that group.

But a total of 85% are either Republican or independent. Given that experts say the ranks of independents are swollen these days with defectors from the GOP, these numbers suggest the Tea Party crowd tilts overwhelmingly to the right.

The new Gallup poll illustrates this even more starkly. The 28% of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters break down this way:

* Forty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters are Republicans, 43% are independents, and only eight percent are Dems. That means a huge majority — 92% — are Republicans or indys, and again, many of those indys could be former Republicans or lean GOP anyway.

* Seventy percent of Tea Party supporters say they’re conservative, and only 22% say they’re moderate. And who knows what they even mean by that word to begin with.

* A whopping 79% of Tea Party supporters are non-hispanic whites. Only 65% of Americans were non-hispanic whites as of 2008. . . .

If the Tea Party wants to protest mainstream politics, it is unclear how the mainstream label helps the organization. It is also doubtful that the label accurately describes the group.

Eric Cantor "Targeted" By a Stray Bullet

Earlier this week, House Republican Eric Cantor accused Democrats of seeking "political gain" by discussing several threats they had received following the healthcare vote. During the same press conference, however, Cantor hypocritically revealed that he too had been "directly threatened."  Specifically, Cantor claimed that someone shot a bullet into his office and that he had received harassing emails. Cantor refused to disclose the emails.

Richmond police have determined that no one shot a bullet at Cantor's office. Instead, the bullet was randomly fired.  According to the New York Times, the police have made the following determination:

A preliminary investigation indicated that the incident in question took place around 1 a.m. Tuesday, when a bullet was apparently fired into the air, striking the office window as it traveled back downward, the Richmond police said in a statement.

The bullet struck the window with enough force to break a pane, the police said, but did not penetrate the blinds inside the window. The bullet landed about one foot inside the office, which Mr. Cantor had occasionally used for meetings, the police said.

There are enough lunatics in the world; so, I do not doubt that violent people could target Republicans. But for Cantor to suggest that Democrats were seeking political gain while claiming victimhood himself reeks of hypocrisy.  Perhaps Cantor was trying to help mitigate the political damage to the extreme right that the recent violence could potentially cause -- which means that he was simply seeking political gain.

Has the Tea Party Movement Shifted From Passionate Protests to Terrorism?

The Tea Party has always engaged in passionate activism.  A recent spate of incidents, however, suggests that some members of the movement have shifted from passionate protest to acts of terrorism.

Last week, members of Congress reported that Tea Party members hurled racist and homophobic epithets towards them. Another congressman said that he was spat upon while walking past a crowd of Tea Party protesters.

Today, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that at least 10 House Democrats have reported receiving threats or being victims of harassment due to their votes in favor of healthcare reform. Democrats have urged Republicans to condemn this behavior.

And a most disturbing act also occurred today in Virginia. Someone slashed a propane gas line at the home of Representative Tom Perriello's brother. Earlier that day, Perriello's brother also received a threatening letter. According to several media reports, two Tea Party members posted the address to the home online -- mistakenly believing that Perriello lived at the location. Local authorities and the FBI are investigating the incident.

Terrorists use violence, physical intimidation and threats to accomplish political goals. Tea Party members who use the same tactics are indisputably terrorists.

Conversative Blog Claims Video Debunks Stories of Bigotry Among Tea Party Movement

As passionate as the Tea Party folks are about politics, I think they should just embrace whatever biases move them. Their defenders, however, are trying to debunk stories, confirmed by multiple sources, of several racist and homophobic incidents involving Tea Party protesters who converged upon Washington, DC last week.

The Dana Show blog has posted 23 seconds of video that purportedly prove that no Tea Party participant hurled any epithets towards members of Congress. The video proves no such thing.

First, the footage is too short to capture everything that occurred during last week's protests. Also, and most importantly, because there were so many people chanting during this particular clip, audio could only capture clearly what the broader group was chanting (sounds like "kill the bill"). This does not disprove the reports that individuals in this boisterous group made racist and homophobic comments. Instead, it shows that with respect to one person's video recording, the louder shouting drowned out individual commentary. Individuals on the ground almost certainly heard more than the video captured.

I have not seen many conservatives agree that this audio disproves the allegations of bias. Perhaps they are not persuaded either.

Finally, The Dana Show went on and on about how persons making these allegations intend to discredit arguments against healthcare reform and the Tea Party movement generally. I disagree. People can have legitimate arguments on some issues while subscribing to racism and homophobia. Racism and homophobia, however, are deplorable and worthy of our attention -- just as much as government spending. The Tea Party movement is not exempt from scrutiny or criticism.

Here is the video footage:

How Many Tea Party Folks Attended DC Rally: "Thousands," "25,000" or "100,000"

Conservative blog Gateway Pundit claims that  "over 100,000" people attended Saturday's Tea Party protest in Washington, DC. GP, however, cites a Fox News article that directly contradicts this claim. According to Fox, "thousands" of people attended. Fox also quotes Representative Michelle Bachman who says that "25,000" people attended. 

Washington, DC officials have discontinued a prior practice of estimating crowd size at rallies. Also, following a march held last year, Tea Party organizers misrepresented attendance figures and even posted pictures from an event in 1997 that had more participants.

Some Tea Party Members Engage In Abusive Racist and Homophobic Behavior

Several liberal blogs are reporting that Tea Party members hurled the N and F words towards House Democrats James Clyburn and Barney Frank and spat on Emanuel Clever. The racist homophobes were protesting an upcoming vote on healthcare reform:

A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a ["nigger"] And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protesters shouted at him with deliberately lispy screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

"It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit-ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."

Homophobia and racism are pervasive social forces, and fear and anxiety often bring out the worst biases in people. Hence, these developments, though quite disturbing, are not shocking. Furthermore, the Tea Party movement began its healthcare protests in a circus-like atmosphere; apparently, things will remain that way until the bitter end.

Are Tea Party Members Protesting Out of Ignorance? Yes -- According to Forbes Article

Bruce Bartlett's latest column in Forbes analyzes the views of Tea Party members regarding taxes -- a primary source of their movement's anxiety. It turns out that most of the Tea Party members who responded to a recent survey regarding federal tax policy have highly distorted views about the magnitude and direction of taxation in the country.

Here is a clip from Bartlett's article:

Tuesday's Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944. . . .

Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.


As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.

I suspect most Tea Party members would simply deny this information.

Definitive Proof That Obama Wants Socialized Medicine

Very subtly -- yet surely -- proof has arrived to demonstrate that President Obama wants socialized medicine. The Tea Party folk and "professional" Republican politicians have made this argument incessantly, and it now appears that they are absolutely correct.

Obama just had his first physical as president, and rather than going to one of the many private hospitals in the country, he went to the National Navy Medical Center --a (gasp) government-run hospital. Not only is the hospital government-run, but it also takes many patients on government-run health plans, like TRICARE -- the socialized plan of choice for Joe "You Lie" Wilson and his family. TRICARE, like all other health plans, only pays for allowed procedures; in other words, it "rations" care. How Bolshevik!

Shame on you, Obama. And shame on the other people who utilize socialized medicine!

Note: Sarcasm to the extreme.

Tea Party Attempting Unconstitutional "Recall" of Democratic Senators

As much as Tea Party members whine that Congress is violating the Constitution, one would expect the group not to advocate clearly unconstitutional measures itself. Well, this logic has not influenced the Tea Party movement.

According to the Washington Times, the Tea Party movement is trying to "recall" several Democratic senators before their terms in office expire. The Washington Times reports that several states have "recall" measures that cover federal officeholders. There is a major problem with these laws: they violate the Constitution.

As the Supreme Court held in Powell v. McCormack, the Constitution establishes all of the requirements for members of the House and Senate. In Powell, the Court held that Congress could not alter those requirements. The House tried to block Adam Clayton Powell from taking his House seat on the grounds that he had engaged in financial impropriety. The Constitution, however, did not allow the House to block Powell, because he had met all of the requirements of office listed in the Constitution.

In US Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court extended Powell and held that states lacked the authority to alter the requirements of members of Congress as well. Thornton involved a challenge to an Arkansas law that established term limits for members of the House and Senate. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. There is nothing unique about a "recall" statute that would make it permissible.

Nothing in the Constitution permits the recall of members of Congress -- although the Constitution does allow each house to "expel" a member. The only power that voters have over members of Congress comes through the normal electoral process. That process takes place every six years for members of the Senate and every two years for members of the House. The Tea Party crowd will have to wait until the targeted senators complete their terms. Yes -- the law applies to everyone.

Tea Party Members Blow Gasket Over Scott Brown's Job Bill Vote

Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown recently voted, along with 4 other GOP members, for cloture on President Obama's $15 billion jobs bill. The Tea Party goers are not amused, and they are blasting Brown's and his daughter's Facebook pages with angry commentary (Gawker and Wonkette have absolutely devilish takes on the subject). Apparently, the concept of a "New England Republican" escapes them.

Query: The Republicans originally agreed to a much larger jobs bill -- $85 billion -- but Harry Reid slashed it to its current level. Why didn't the Tea Party folks flip out over the original Republican position, which was more expensive? Perhaps, they did not complain because the original bill was laden with business tax cuts (as is the final bill) or because Fox spun Reid's decision as an act of partisanship. If conservatives voiced complaints with the original bill please send me the links. Thanks.

South Carolina Tea Party Leader Backs Illegal Proposal to Ban US Currency

Recently, Dissenting Justice analyzed a proposed law in South Carolina that would ban the use of federal currency in the state. The proposal would violate blatant provisions of the Constitution and federal statutory law. Nevertheless, Michael Pitts, the Republican lawmaker who introduced the measure, wants to protest what he views as excessive spending by the government and to prepare for a collapse of the national monetary system.

Although Pitts' measure is not formally connected to the Tea Party movement, a local representative of the protest organization says that he likes the idea. According to an AOL News report, Ron Parks, a South Carolina Tea Party organizer, "Pitts' bill is something the movement could get behind. . . because it's in 'agreement with what we stand for, in that it would stabilize a monetary system in South Carolina.'"

Ironically, the Tea Party movement frequently complains that federal policies violate the Constitution. Nevertheless, a Tea Party organizer says that group could "get behind" a blatantly unconstitutional state law.

Does the Public Read? Sadly, No. . .

A recent CBS-New York Times poll finds that only 6% of Americans believe that the $787 billion stimulus package actually created new jobs. Of course, the poll, echoing other recent surveys, also indicates deep disapproval of Congress, disapproval of President Obama (much less than Congress, however), and widespread anger about the direction of the country.

The low number of Americans who believe in the effectiveness of the stimulus shows that skepticism does not correlate with party affiliation. A wide cross-section of Americans doubt that the stimulus has created jobs.

The public's deep skepticism regarding the success of the stimulus, however, conflicts with most of the published reports by analysts who have studied the effectiveness of the spending package. According to a New York Times article, prestigious economic research firms such IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com estimate that the stimulus package has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs to the economy and that it could ultimately create up to 2.5 million jobs. In addition, the NYT reports that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "considers these estimates to be conservative."

What Explains the Disconnect?
A number of factors could explain the disconnect between public perception and reality. Although the stimulus has created jobs, unemployment remains very high at 10%. Also, many families are still struggling to pay their expenses.

But these factors, as significant as they are, cannot possibly account for the absolute inaccuracy of public opinion. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of the public does not take the time to research issues before forming opinions. Furthermore, while the news media happily report the anger and skepticism of Tea Party participants and other "angry" segments of society, they rarely critically engage the ill-founded claims of these groups.

The blog Outside the Beltway has an even less generous view of voters, contending that:

These sorts of polls are annoying. Most people simply have no basis for making judgments on technical matters like this; indeed, economists can only take a very educated guess. So, asking Joe Public about such matters is not very helpful.

I agree that the public, as the data demonstrate, lacks knowledge about basic facts related to the stimulus. Nevertheless, I believe that the public can and should educate itself on important social issues. At the same time, however, the news media has the solemn responsibility to inform voters rather than simply creating and reporting political division. Both camps have failed miserably in terms of public education.