More Evidence That Republicans Are More Factually Challenged Than Democrats

authordefault
on

In writing The Republican Brain, I had a problem to solve. You see, it was one thing to cite all the psychological research suggesting that liberals and conservatives just think differently, because they have different personalities and cognitive styles. Sure, one could infer on this basis that certain conservatives, especially authoritarian conservatives, would simply be more factually wrong about certain deeply held beliefs. But I also needed evidence from the real world showing that, you know, conservatives or Republicans areย more factuallyย incorrect.

Thatโ€™s where all the fact-checker data cameย in.

You see, we have paid professionals whose job it is to track just how wrong Democrats and Republicans are. Theyโ€™re called fact-checkers, and as I show in The Republican Brain (and in this article for The Nation), both PolitiFact and the Washington Postโ€™s fact-checker column do indeed rate Republicans significantly worse than Democrats overall. The data for PolitiFact had already been analyzed before I did the book (seeย hereThe Washington Post from 2007 through 2011. And the punchline is the same: Republicans fare worse than Democrats, especially when it comes to the worst ratings (4 Pinocchios, โ€œpants onย fireโ€).

I find these fact-checker data particularly compelling, by the way, for the following reason: Neither PolitiFact nor Glenn Kessler (who writes the Postโ€™s column), think of themselves as liberal partisans. To the contrary, I would argue that both go too far in trying to ding Democrats and liberals, just to make themselves appear balanced (and, presumably, to keep getting their calls returned by the other side of the aisle). Therefore, if their data shows Republicans fare worse, that really saysย something.

Indeed, I was so convinced of these fact-checkers’ need to hug the center that I expected Kessler to try to course correct in the wake ofย myย analysis showing that he rates Republicans worse than Democrats. I figured heย would try to ding Democrats a little more, so as to even the score a bit and appear lessย biased.

It now appears that I was wrong in that assumption. Kesslerโ€“a thoroughly honest guy, there’s no disputing thatโ€“has nowย extended the dataset across the first six months of 2012. And he finds, lo and behold, numbers just like mine. More specifically, Kessler gets theย following:

In the past six months, we had 80 Fact Checker columns that rated Republican statements, for an average rating of 2.5 Pinocchios, compared to 56 that rated statements of Democrats, for an average rating ofย 2.11.

My overall finding for 2007-2011 was 2.45 (Republicans) to 2.12 (Democrats). In other words, Iโ€™m on precisely the same page with Kessler,ย data-wise.ย 

And the data are all the more striking in that I believe Kessler inflates the Democrat total, intentionally or otherwise. Take, for instance, this March 2012 item in which Kessler gives President Obama a 4 Pinocchio rating, the worst possible, because he used a dubious quotation from Rutherford B. Hayes in a speech. Iโ€™m not saying the quotation was legitโ€”but one of Obamaโ€™s sources was, after all, the Encyclopedia Britannica! The point is, errors like this happen all the time, but if the 4 Pinocchio rating is to retain any meaning, it can’t be used on such pecadilloes. 4P ratings should be reserved for major, repeated lies with political consequencesโ€”like, for instance, the Republican denial of global warming.

And indeed, if you want evidence that Kessler dings Democrats and lets Republicans off easy, consider the following comparison. While Obama gets 4Ps over Rutherford B. Hayes, Kesslerย did not even give a rating to Sarah Palin for her incredible historical whopper about Paul Revere having โ€œwarned the British.โ€ In the latter case, I think 4 Pinocchios was fully merited, because Palin doubled down on the obvious falsehoodโ€“and because it was highly ideological in nature, and not justย silly.

So in light of all this, to see Kessler stillย rating Republicans worse than Democrats really, really says something toย me.

What does Kessler make of the data on his own ratings? Hereโ€™s what heย writes:

โ€ฆwe still think the slightly higher average for Republicans is mostly due to the primaryย season.

In fairness, however, we should note that writer Chris Mooney, inย an article for The Nationย in May, counted up all of the ratings of The Fact Checker since its inception in 2007 and concluded that in general Republicans received a higher average Pinocchio rating than Democrats. (Out of a total of 315 ratings, he calculated an average of 2.12 for Democrats and 2.45 for Republicans.) He argues that this means Republican politicians are more often โ€œegregiously wrong;โ€ others might suggest this demonstrates some sort of liberalย bias.

We respectively disagree with both analyses. The result is that both parties end up with an average above Two Pinocchios, which under our rating scale means โ€œsignificant omissions and/or exaggerations.โ€ Thatโ€™s the big picture. Surely our politicians can do better than that. The record on both sides is pretty lousy, and neither side should feel good about their performance. [Italย added]

Iโ€™m sorry, but this strikes me as poor reasoning on Kesslerโ€™s part. We have a clear statistical difference between the ratings bestowed on Republicans, and the ratings bestowed on Democrats, over a long period of time. And given that the Pinocchio scale only goes from 1 to 4 (there is no zero, and no half Pinocchios are given), a difference of about .3-.4 over time is not a smallย one.

What’s more, given that this difference does not appear to be a fluke, there has to be a reason for it to exist. And I agree, one could posit many explanations: Maybe there is a selection bias with respect to which items are being rated. Maybe Kessler himself is biased against Republicans. Orโ€”my theoryโ€”maybe Republicans just are inherently more untruthful. (To explain why thatโ€™s the case, one could then come up with additional competingย explanations.)

But the point is, there has to be an explanation. It just wonโ€™t do to say, as Kessler does, that since both Dems and Republicans score above Two Pinocchios, both ought to be ashamed of themselves. The data are telling us something more than thatโ€”something stronger thanย that.ย 

In my opinion, what they’re telling us is that Republicans today are simply more untruthful than Democratsโ€“and the difference is dramatic enough that even a centrist-leaning fact checker, who strives to be non-partisan, cannot fail to pick itย up.ย 

authordefault
Admin's short bio, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit. Voluptate maxime officiis sed aliquam! Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur adipisicing elit.

Related Posts

on

His push for more gas development alarms climate change experts amid growing evidence of declining global LNG demand.

His push for more gas development alarms climate change experts amid growing evidence of declining global LNG demand.
on

A pro-Trump, pro-oil oligarchy is being convened by a group backed by the owners of GB News, campaigners say.

A pro-Trump, pro-oil oligarchy is being convened by a group backed by the owners of GB News, campaigners say.
on

Office of Management and Budget General Counsel Mark Paoletta reportedly drafted the memo that took aim at the โ€œgreen new dealโ€ but caused widespread upheaval.

Office of Management and Budget General Counsel Mark Paoletta reportedly drafted the memo that took aim at the โ€œgreen new dealโ€ but caused widespread upheaval.
Analysis
on

Understanding how autocrats and oligarchs capture and consolidate state power.

Understanding how autocrats and oligarchs capture and consolidate state power.