Political Manipulation of Ignorance:

How does the political ignorance of the American voter affect

how politicians shape their platforms?
by Cole Sebastian and Marco Saah

Introduction

Modern American elections are filled with promises, opinions, facts, observations, and many
other types of campaign spouting of varying degrees of truth. Successfully navigating this complex web
of facts and fiction requires an irrational amount of time and effort from the average voter. This gives
politicians the opportunity to exploit and manipulate the nations ignorance for their own benefit. There
are four main reasons for the importance of this research: ignorance pervades American society in ways
not often recognized, mass ignorance has existed throughout history and will remain throughout the
conceivable future, ignorance has major damaging effects on the democratic system, and the
understanding of ignorance and how it can be manipulated is vital to being an informed and rational
citizen and voter.
Every single citizen living in the United States is impacted by the issue of political ignorance.
Whether they be a politician or part of the electorate, theyre affected by political ignorance in a
significant way. Political ignorance in Americas society and political system is nearly unmatched in
how all encompassing and pervasive it is. This is because ignorance is a extremely multidimensional
issue. For this reason, the spread and extent of ignorance is also so pervasive that theres no real way to
evade the issue. Political ignorance and how it affects politicians and their platforms is an important
now, and it will remain an important issue in the future unless Americas society or political system
changes in an unfathomably drastic way. This is why our research holds both ideas for the future, but
also insight into the past.
The research weve done on political ignorance and how it affects politicians platforms has both
practical and theoretical significance. When examining the past in order to learn from it, we are able to
apply our findings to analyze and uncover past examples of how politicians have used political
ignorance to shape their platforms and manipulate the public. When looking towards the future, we can
use the information weve found to theorize about how the issue of political ignorance will evolve and
continue to shape the the future of our nation, and what can be done about it. Any possibility of change
must come from an understanding of the future of political ignorance in America. To obtain this
understanding, we must examine the past.
The widespread ignorance of Americans has a huge affect on societal behavior and is extremely
potent in the outcome of political elections. Many voters are ignorant of which political candidates align
with their ideological beliefs, and many are ignorant of what their ideological beliefs actually are. This
allows for the potential of political manipulation of ignorance, which can cause people to vote without
knowing which candidate is most beneficial to their own welfare. In Uninformed Votes, a study by
Larry M. Bartels, it was found that the discrepancy between actual election outcomes and estimated
hypothetical election outcomes if every voter was fully informed to be three percentage points--more

than enough to swing a close election. The most potent effect of ignorance on how people vote is called
the paradox of voting, which is based off of the phenomenon that is is rational to vote but irrational to
become informed. Voting itself takes only a few minutes out of the voters day once a year but
becoming well-informed enough to cast a ballot that aligns with the voters true ideology takes hours of
research and critical thinking that most Americans are not capable of or do not have the motivation for.
There is no way of knowing exactly how, but it is clear that American history would be unrecognizable
if ignorance had never infected voting decisions.
In order prevent the manipulation of ignorance, one must understand the ways that ignorance
can be manipulated. A goal of this research is to give readers an awareness of how their ignorance can
be and is manipulated. An acute understanding of ones personal ignorance and of the nations ignorance
allows one to take a step a back and make informed decisions. Ignorance can be divided into two
categories: knowing what we dont know, or being knowledgeable about our ignorance, and not
knowing what we dont know, or being ignorant of our ignorance. Ignorance is most dangerous in the
latter category and this study aims to give a better understanding of what we dont know. If people are
aware of their ignorance, it is much harder to be misled by it.

Part I: Voters and the forms of ignorance

In order to understand how politicians can manipulate the ignorance of voters we must first
understand the ignorance possessed by voters that is possible to manipulate. In his book Agnotology:
The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance, Robert Proctor categorizes ignorances under three categories:
ignorance as native state or resource (when knowledge is yet to be learned), ignorance as lost realm or
selective choice (when knowledge is forgotten or purposely avoided), ignorance as strategic ploy or
active construct (when knowledge is purposefully hidden or obscured). All three have an effect on how
someone becomes politically informed, identifies their ideologies, and aligns their ideologies with that
of a politician. A person's support for a certain politician, candidate, or issue is dictated by their
knowledge and ignorance surrounding. How someone is informed dictates how they gain political
opinions and how they align pre-existing ideologies with a certain politician or issue. Those who can
control how someone is informed can ultimately control what they believe.
Ignorance as native state is, in a political sense, what voters dont know because they have yet
to become informed on the issues at hand and/or the beliefs, actions, and policy plans of a politician.
Native ignorance is simply where knowledge has not yet penetrated (Proctor, 2008, p.4). This

ignorance stems from voters lacking proper political socialization and being simply too lazy to become
informed. Given the large population of the United States and the limited networks which people can
participate in their government, many people dont have enough political efficacy to feel that their
political knowledge matters. The chance of an individual voter influencing the outcome of a mass
election is one in 100 million (Riker and Ordeshook, 1968) and as a result, the incentive to accumulate
political knowledge is vanishingly small, so long as the only reason so is to cast a better vote (Somin,
2006, p.257). This leads to the so-called paradox of voting in that it is often rational for citizens to
vote but irrational for them to become well informed. This can cause the many voters to vote without
having knowledge of what they are voting for.
Despite a general lack of knowledge from voters, most go into the booth having already decided
who or what they are going to vote for. The way that these decisions are made is through information
shortcuts, which are anything that allows voters to make electoral choices without becoming fully
informed (Bartels, 2008, p.2). These shortcuts can include partisan stereotypes, religious stereotypes,
endorsements, and other testimonials from trusted sources. Information shortcuts make voters feel like
they know the candidates without ever having to become informed on them. Although they give the
feeling of an informed decision, making a decision based on information shortcuts often gives a
different outcome than making a fully informed decision. In a study published in the American Journal
of Political Science in 1996, Larry M. Bartels studied the six most recent United States presidential
election and analyzed individual voter data to come up with the hypothetical fully informed votes of
his samples. Bartels found that the average deviation between actual votes and the hypothetical votes
was ten percent (p.194). Information shortcuts allow politicians to hide their beliefs, plans, and
experience behind outward appearances that are irrelevant to their governing abilities.
The issue of uninformed voters is not only caused by a lack of information reaching citizens but
also by inadequate processing of the information provided. This can be categorized as lost realm or
selective choice, which, in a political sense, is information about a certain candidate, politician, or issue
that is purposefully ignored or forgotten. Voters can consciously and subconsciously pick and choose
whatever information confirms previous ideas or biases. When someone has an opinion about a certain
person or subject before becoming informed, good information can become useless. Pre-existing biases
will cause people to use new information to reinforce their preexisting views on political issues, while
discounting evidence that runs counter to them (Somin, 2008, p.261). In a 2006 study by Charles S.
Taber and Milton Lodge of Stony Brook University, Taber and Lodge experimentally proved three
theories of rationalization: the prior attitude effect, the disconfirmation bias, and the confirmation bias
(p.757). Taber and Lodge recruited 262 people from introductory political science courses at Stony
Brook University to have them evaluate arguments differing arguments on controversial issues (it

should be noted that this sample is not a completely accurate representation of the public as the
participants are in introductory political science classes meaning that they are likely more politically
informed than the general public). With the prior attitude effect, it was found that when people feel
strongly about an issue will evaluate supportive arguments as stronger and more compelling than
opposing arguments. Taber and Lodge asked the participants to evaluate arguments surrounding gun
control and affirmative action and found that the participants who favor gun control or affirmative
action rate congruent arguments as stronger than incongruent arguments, while those opposed see the
con arguments as stronger (2006, p.760). With the disconfirmation bias, Taber and Lodge found that
people will spend more time and cognitive resources denigrating and counterarguing attitudinally
incongruent than congruent argument (2006, p.757) by measuring how much time each participant
spent reading and analyzing each argument and asking them about how they used that time (2006,
p.763). To test confirmation bias, Taber and Lodge allowed the participants to choose with arguments to
read from a table of sixteen arguments that had an equal amount of pro and con for both gun control and
affirmative action (2006, p.764). They found that proponents of the issue sought out more supporting
than opposing argument (2006, p.764).
Political opinions and voting decisions are formed more by ignorance than by knowledge. The
trend among American citizens is that a decision is made or an opinion is formed based off of
information shortcuts, which provide little to no actual facts, and from there that decision or opinion
remains regardless of the quantity or quality of information provided. A politician can manipulate
ignorance by manipulating information shortcuts. To sway a voter in a certain direction on any issue is
often simply a matter of getting to that voter first and planting an unchanging opinion. The only way for
someone to get past the information shortcuts is to be actively engaged in becoming well-informed. It
takes devotion from the individual voter in order to obtain and process the proper information required
to make an informed decision. This devotion becomes irrational when voters have such a small
influence in elections. Because of this, even highly intelligent and rational citizens could choose to
devote little or no effort to the acquisition of political knowledge (Somin, 2006, p.257).

Part II: The media fostering ignorance

The media is the link between the politicians and voters and therefore the link between the
ignorant and the manipulators of the ignorant. The media is the sole avenue by which politicians interact
with the electorate, making it hugely important in understanding how politicians manipulate ignorance.

Politicians must find the correct channels of the media through which to manipulate. A politician who
understands how to manipulate ignorance must be aware of the vulnerabilities of the media.
Those vulnerabilities often rise from the very principles of journalism that are intended to create
objective reporting. This is demonstrated in Jon Christensens essay Smoking Out Objectivity:
Journalistic Gears in the Agnogenesis Machine, which uses the history of the tobacco industrys
proliferation of ignorance to explain how the journalistic values of objectivity, fairness, balance, and
factsvalues that form the center of journalisms epistemologymake journalism vulnerable to being
enlisted as an accomplice, even if unwilling or unwitting, in the deliberate cultural production of
ignorance (2008, p.267). Christensen explains the complete history of the tobacco industrys strategic
development of agnogenesis (the deliberate and widespread proliferation of ignorance) through public
relations and journalism. The structure of big tobaccos manipulation of journalism can be seen in the
industrial and political resistance to regulations for reducing global warming.
The first phase of the tobacco industrys development of agnogenesis involved finding and
funding scientific research that could be fed to journalists to argue that there was evidence that factors
other than cigarette smoking caused cancer (Christensen, 2008, p.268). This relied on the principles of
fair and balanced reporting which forced journalists to publicize questionable science in order to
represent both sides of the issue. This phase was an upfront public relations battle between conflicting
sciences. This strategy can be seen in Sherwood Idsos 1982 book, Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe?, in
which Idso argues that carbon dioxide would not warm the planet but instead fertilize crops. This was
released in response to mounting evidence throughout the seventies that carbon dioxide was causing the
earth to become hotter. Research such as Idsos book had to be given attention by the press in order to
engage in balanced reporting and to represent both sides of an issue. In the case of global warming, the
scientific debate has been nothing more than a thinly vailed political debate. By the late 70s, the
overwhelming scientific opinion was that global warming was a legitiment concern (American Institute
of Physics, 2014, p.2) while the political debate over the legitimacy of global warming lasts to this day.
The political debate was able to thrive be relying on a virtually nonexistent scientific debate. The
politicians were able to represent the scientific debate to public as an actual debate because the media
had to acknowledge both sides.
After the Surgeon Generals report in 1964, the tobacco industry was forced the move into a
phase that was more subtle and less of an outright denial (Christensen, 2008, p.268). Big tobacco gave
up on disproving the overwhelming evidence against the safety of tobacco and focused on keeping the
controversy alive in order to maintain doubt (Christensen, 2008, p.268). The industry simply had to
continue to deny while the medias attraction to controversy would confuse consumers so that they
would doubt the legitimacy of the claims that tobacco is harmful. In a memorandum from the Brown

and Williamson Tobacco Corp., it is stated that doubt is our product since it is the best means of
competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of
establishing a controversy (Christensen, 2008, p.280-281). This statement is echoed in a memorandum
from the Global Climate Science Team (a task force created by ExxonMobil) which states Victory will
be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science [and]
recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the conventional wisdom (Shulman, 2007, p.40). The way
that both the tobacco industry and climate change deniers instilled doubt was by attacking scientific
studies so that the public would question their legitimacy. According to an essay from the Union of
Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil implemented a strategy of underwriting a wide array of front
organizations to publish in-house articles by select scientists and other like-minded individuals to raise
objections about legitimate climate science research (Shulman, 2007, p.10). The goal is not to convince
the public that these reports are wrong but that they are questionable. This makes it so that many people
are not demanding climate change reform because many feel that the verdict is not out and we must wait
until something can be proven. The key to instilling doubt is to make both sides of the debate seem
equal. ExxonMobil did this by funding many groups that publisize the works of the same small group of
scientists (Shulman, 2007, p.10-11). By doing this they created the picture that their was broad
opposition from many organizations towards global warming reform when actually it was only coming
from a handful scientists. The medias attraction to controversy gave the notion to the public that global
warming was highly contested among the scientific community. With that notion, politicians have more
freedom to take any stance on the issue while still maintaining their reputation. Politicians are able to
use the ignorance created by the medias attraction to controversy in order to justify any position on
global warming that is neccessary.
The journalistic principles of obectivity, balance and fairness are as much a strength as they are
a weakness in the case of the fostering of ignorance. If politicians know how to take advantage of them
correctly, they can easily be used to obscure and convolute facts that are right there for the public to see.
When a politician or institution is faced with damaging reports or claims, all it can take is denial and
they have already won. This is because journalists must show every side of the story, even the sides that
arent really there.

Part III: Political manipulation of ignorance

Politicians are able to manipulate ignorance to their advantage largely because the vast majority
of political and societal institutions rely on ignorance to function. The pervasiveness of ignorance makes

it a force that is somewhat easy to manipulate by those in positions of power and influence. In Proctors
book on Agnotology, he describes how vital ignorance is to the success of todays institutions, there is
a great deal of private speech inside law firms, hospitals, governments, and every other kind of
institution, for whom knowledge is not power but danger--which is why institutional amnesia may be as
valued as institutional memory (2008, p.10). The influence that ignorance possesses is the reason why
it can be so easily used and manipulated by politicians.
Politicians dont manipulate ignorance solely for the purpose of gaining support during election
time, ignorance is also manipulated by politicians to breed support for the policies they enact post
election, once they are in office. Politicians manipulate ignorance to get elected, gain support while in
office, and get reelected. Its a cycle of manipulation. Every politician makes promises that they cannot
keep while on the campaign trail, and most politicians want to keep their poll numbers and approval
rating high once they have been elected, either so they can run again for re-election, or so they can use
the support of the people to pressure other politicians to also stand behind their policies. In a review of
Election Platforms and Policy Shifts: How Clever Politicians Shape Public Opinion by Chaim
Fershtman and Aviad Heifetz, this is elaborated on, [Political] leaders run for office on a platform that
appeals to the public at election time but may eventually carry out a very different policy, which once
implemented in itself changes public opinion to acceptance (2015).
Politicians are able to gain support for their platforms and breed acceptance for the policies they
pursue in an number of different ways. When seeking to gain support for their platforms during election
time, politicians primarily manipulate the electorates rational ignorance. One method that is used often
is the strategy of creating controversy. This is when politicians create unnecessary amounts of
controversy around an issue, over complicating it to the point of it fostering ignorance on the actual
facts of the issue.
This strategy takes advantage of voters rational ignorance, which is voters not becoming
informed because doing so would be more trouble than its worth. This is described well by Ilya Somin
in a column on how Donald Trump exploits voters rational ignorance, Most [American voters] have an
intuitive sense that there is little payoff to carefully studying political issues. Quite rationally, they act
accordingly. That behavior, however, leaves them vulnerable to Trump and others who seek to
manipulate ignorance for political gain (2015). Even though Trump is the subject of Somins column,
what he is saying about the manipulation of ignorance doesnt only apply to Trump. American voters
dont get informed on political issues because of a lack of political efficacy coupled with the fact that
the American political system is often difficult to traverse, and full of confusing, controversial issues
which are sometimes made as controversial as they are by politicians. Controversy breeds doubt, and
subsequently ignorance. Controversial issues are viewed as far more multidimensional and complex

than issues that are not controversial, so fully understanding and forming opinions on controversial
issues takes a lot more time and effort than forming opinions on other, less complicated issues. This is
how voters rational ignorance is exploited, many American voters will not put forth the time and effort
to try and fully understand a controversial issue, and will instead resort to confirming their bias by
rationalizing their support of a candidate whose views on a controversial issue have changed, or are in
conflict with their own. Some voters even remain ignorant of controversial issues entirely, opting for
blind support of the candidate they had previously supported. This is how rational ignorance is
manipulated through controversy.
One of the most clear examples of how rational ignorance has been exploited by politicians
through controversy is the debate over global warming. As discussed earlier, the media is vulnerable to
exploitation because of its attraction to controversy. In the case of global warming this can be seen
clearly. Global warming became extremely controversial and debated even though the science
supporting the existence of global warming had been accepted as fact by the majority of the scientific
community.
The support of Americas decision to go to war in Iraq is also an incredible example of how
ignorance can be manipulated by politicians to breed acceptance for policies and actions they want to
pursue. According to a national Pew Research poll that was conducted between 2003 and 2008, in 2003
72% of people polled believed that it was the right decision to use military force in Iraq, and only 22%
of people polled believed it was the wrong decision at that time. These views dwindled significantly
within the first fear, and in March of 2004 the percent of those who still believed America had made the
right decision had gone down to 54%, and the percentage of those who believed we had made the wrong
choice went up to 39%. This trend continued until 2008 when 54% of people, a majority, believed
America made the wrong decision using military force in Iraq, and only 38% still thought America had
made the right choice. President Bush was able to bolster an initial amount of support for his choice to
go to war in Iraq through the manipulation of ignorance. President Bush spread false and misleading
information on a large scale to gain support for his decision to go to war in Iraq. The extent of how
much false information was spread only became clear after the fact, in 2008, the Center for Public
Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush
administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260
statements by President Bush himself (Waldman, 2015). The spreading of this false information did not
yield lasting support, as can be seen by the pew research poll I mentioned earlier. The American people's
support of the war quickly dwindled as the Bush administration's info proved to be false, and the
casualties of the Iraq war grew. However, Bush was able to obtain enough initial support through

spreading ignorance to take the action he wanted to take in Iraq, which is what really matters resource
wise.
A similar spreading of false information to a lesser extent could be seen when President Obama
was gaining support to try and pass his healthcare bill, Obamacare. When President Obama was
attempting to gain support for Obamacare, he addressed people's fears countless times by saying, If
you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. This turned out to actually be false, but that only
became clear after Obamacare was passed, so it didnt matter to the Obama administration. This turned
out to be more than a unfulfilled promise, but a deliberate misdirection on the part of the Obama
administration. In the fall of 2014, Jonathon Gruber, an architect of the Affordable Care Act, admitted to
obscuring the truth from the public saying that lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and
that the stupidity of the American voter was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass"
(Monsivais).
Politicians manipulate political ignorance in a number of ways. The basis for manipulation
occurs when politicians are able to make the first impression on an voter, and instill in them an opinion
that will not change. This causes voters to be rationally ignorant and rely on information shortcuts and
party loyalty to form their views on politics. Politicians sometimes remain vague about their ideologies
and policies, keeping the electorate ignorant of their actual views so they can obtain the most support
from people who are unsure of what they actually believe. Politicians (like Donald Trump) appeal to
stupidity and base their platforms in falsehoods that they know voters will support them because they
believe them to be true, ABC/Washington Post survey found that 40% of Republican-leaning voters
without college degrees support Trump, compared with only 19% of college graduates (Somin, 2015).
In the case of Donald Trump, lack of education correlates more with support for Trump than political
ideology does. This is because of Trumps appeal to stupidity. However, Trump is only one single
example of this, many other politicians are guilty of using the same tactics. Politicians use controversy
to sow doubt within the electorate and take advantage of voters rational ignorance by having them
default to confirming their bias or relying on information shortcuts. They also pander to fear, and
obscure/hide the facts to gain support or breed acceptance, like the Bush administration did in the case
of the Iraq war. Its through all these methods working together than politicians are successfully able to
manipulate the ignorance of the American voter.

Bibliography
Bartels, Larry M. The Irrational Electorate. The Wilson Quarterly Oct. 2008: n. pag. Print.

Bartels, Larry M. "Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections." American

Journal of Political Science 40.1 (1996): 194-230.
Christensen, Jon. Smoking Out Objectivity: Journalistic Gears in the Agnogenesis Machine.
Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Ed. Robert N. Proctor and Londa
Schiebinger. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2008. 266-67. Print.
Fershtman, Chaim, and Aviad Heifetz. Election Platforms and Policy Shifts: How Clever
Politicians Shape Public Opinion. Economic Journal (2006): n. pag. Royal Economic Society.
Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
George, Lisa, and Joel Waldfogel. Does the New York Times Spread Ignorance and Apathy?
UCLA Anderson School of Management. UCLA, 5 July 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
Gilens, Martin. Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. JSTOR. : American
Political Science Association, 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.
Monsivais, Martinez. "'The stupidity of the American voter.'" CBS This Morning.
N.p., 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Jan. 2016. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/
affordable-care-act-architect-on-camera-bashing-american-voters/>.
Pillar, Paul R. The Iran Issue and the Exploitation of Ignorance. The National Interest 23 Aug.
2015: n. pag. Print.
Proctor, Robert N. Agnotology: A Missing Term to Describe the Cultural Production of
Ignorance (and Its Study). Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Ed. Robert
N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008. 1-33. Print.
Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. The
American Political Science Review 62.1 (1968): 2542. Web...
Smithson, Michael J. Social Theories of Ignorance. Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of
Ignorance. Ed. Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger. Stanford, California: Stanford
University UP, 2008. 209-29. Print.
Somin, Ilya. Knowledge About Ignorance: New Directions in the Study of Political Information.
Research rept. no. 1-3. Fairfax: George Mason University School of Law, 2006. Print. George
Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Ser.
Somin, Ilya. Trump Exploits Rational Political Ignorance. USA Today [Tysons Corner
Virginia] 5 Oct. 2015, Opinion: n. pag. USA Today. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.
Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political
Beliefs." American Journal of Political Science 50.3 (2006): 755-69. Print.
"The Public and Climate Change." American Institute of Physics. N.p., Feb. 2014. Web. 10 Jan.
2016. <https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public2.htm#S1988>.
Public Attitudes toward the War in Iraq: 2003-2008. Pew Research Center. N.p., 19 Mar.
2008. Web. 10 Jan. 2016. <http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-thewar-in-iraq-20032008/>.

Waldman, Paul. George W. Bush Didnt Just Lie about the Iraq War. What He Did Was Much
Worse. The Week 20 May 2015: n. pag. Web. 10 Jan. 2016.
<http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-didmuch-worse>.
Shulman, Seth. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobaccos Tactics to
Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science. Cambridge: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2007.
Print.