Testing how stupid we are

American conventional wisdom is often unwise, particularly when it comes to politics and public policy. There's a reason for that. Rick Shenkman, an associate professor of history at George Mason University, has quantified what many civic-minded people have suspected but feared to express. Collectively, "We the People" are stupid when it comes to knowing and practicing the fundamentals of democracy.

Not only are we civically illiterate in the most information-driven age in history, more troubling, we don't seem to care. Instead of being embarrassed that a majority -- 6 out of 10 -- of Americans can't name the three branches of the federal government, our civic ignorance has become entertainment fodder on the late night talk shows.

Entertainment has also morphed into legitimate political speech. For presidential candidates, the value of performances on "Saturday Night Live" and "The Daily Show" rival -- if not exceed -- appearances on "Meet the Press."

Shenkman rails against this civic ineptitude in his book, "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About The American Voter." He fails to mask his frustration with an electorate responsible for sending George W. Bush to the White House -- twice. But Shenkman gets beyond the predictable anti-Bush screed to offer a variety of cures to the political dementia that should appeal to people across the ideological spectrum.

The best -- and most practical -- is a return to teaching civics and American history in the classroom. To ensure this mandate is taken seriously, Shenkman wants civics to be tested and evaluated under the No Child Left Behind law, giving it parity with reading and mathematics. He also wants civics courses to be a requirement for a college degree. This idea deserves serious consideration.

In 2007, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute gave a 100-question civics and history test to 14,000 randomly selected college students across the nation. The average score was 55. The freshmen scored better than seniors primarily, it was reasoned, because they had not yet forgotten what little they had learned in high school.

Shenkman said studies show that the more knowledgeable voters are about the government they supposedly oversee, the less susceptible they are to political manipulation. If that's the case, then a big part of any new civics curriculum should focus on how to disregard public opinion polls.

Polls don't really reflect opinion. They mirror news coverage. Most people think the economy is bad despite record personal affluence because bad economic news is a staple in the daily news cycle. Real economic loss is legitimate news. The problem is when real economic loss doesn't occur, a decline in profits will do just as well.

I also get a kick out of pollsters who ask the electorate its opinion on the progress of the Iraq War. How would the average voter know? Editors acknowledge that as the violence in Iraq has decreased, so has news coverage. Democracy would be much better served if pollsters surveyed people who actually know something about the subject in question. What the American people feel about the war is meaningless, but a poll of people with a diplomatic or military background is a survey worth taking.

The other weakness with public opinion polls is too many people would rather lie than admit a lack of knowledge. Shenkman cites a survey in which 40 percent of Americans gave an opinion on the Public Affairs Act of 1975. Too bad there's no such law.

The only criticism of Shenkman's work is that it doesn't go far enough. The average American's lack of economic understanding also makes the political process susceptible to exploitation. For example, in a time when the weak American dollar is helping to push up energy prices, calling for $50 billion in new economic stimulus -- financed with debt -- doesn't make economic sense. But come tomorrow, such a proposal will be introduced in Congress. I doubt there will be much popular opposition to the new round of spending.

Although fiscally irresponsible, a new round of handouts and pork projects makes perfect political sense in an election year. That lends credence to the premise of Shenkman's book.

So just how stupid are we? I'm afraid finding out is going to be an expensive lesson.